Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 avril 2026, 2026 BMB 32 – Police v Saillen THEEKOY

Police v Saillen THEEKOY

2026 BMB 32

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLACK RIVER

In the matter of: CN 1022/2025

POLICE

V

Saillen THEEKOY

JUDGMENT 1. The accused stands charged with the offence of possession of stolen property, pursuant to sections 40 of the Criminal code.

2. The accused pleaded not guilty and was unrepresented throughout the trial process.

3. The prosecution produced the two defence statements recorded from the accused during the course of the enquiry [Doc A and A1].

4. Witness no.4 was the victim of a larceny which occurred on 24 th January 2023 between 08h – 17h. After work, when witness no.4 got back home, he noticed that the house was in a mess. He realised that a theft had occurred when he saw that burglar bars were cut open and several items in the house were missing, including a tablet of brand Huawei of colour black or dark blue. He mentioned that the tablet was a brand-new tablet and it was stolen together with its box which contained the receipt and warranty card. After a year, the police contacted him and informed him that the tablet had been recovered. He called at the office of Petite Riviere CID and identified the said tablet. He inserted the password in the presence of police officers to confirm that it was really the same tablet that he lost. After the enquiry the tablet was returned to him. He was not cross-examined.

5. A search was carried out at the place of the accused on the 13 th November 2023. Witness no.3 deposed to the effect that on the aforesaid date, at around 13h55, he proceeded to the place of the accused at Avenue de Lys, Canot and with the accused’s consent and in his

presence, he searched the dwelling house and found and secured a tablet of brand Huawei. Upon informing the accused of the police suspicion that this tablet may be stolen property, the accused replied that he bought the said tablet from one man ‘Rolo’ in the month of February 2023 in the region of Canot. Accused was brought to the CID of Camp Le Vieux together with the exhibits for verification. Once at the office, witness no.3 checked the serial number of the tablet and compared it with the serial number of the tablet which was reported stolen at the police station of Albion in OB 54/2023. He realised that the serial number matched and that it was the same stolen property. Furthermore, the tablet was still in its box together with its receipt and warranty card. The accused was then placed under arrest and the enquiry was conducted by other police officers.

6. The enquiry officer – witness no.1 – confirmed the search that was carried out at the accused’s place and mentioned in court that the enquiry revealed that the receipt which was secured in the box was in the name of Mr Denis Didier Vincent.

7. None of the witnesses were cross-examined and the accused elected to remain silent at the close of the prosecution’s case.

8. I have considered the evidence on record as well as the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanour in court. I have also considered the out-of-court statement of the accused.

9. In a case of possession of stolen property, the prosecution needs to establish the element of “possession” of the ‘stolen property’ before the tactical burden shifts on the accused party to establish sufficient excuse and justification. I find it apt to quote the Supreme Court in the case of Prayag v State 2004 SCJ 29, as follows: “… Where the charge is “possession without sufficient excuse or justification”, once the prosecution has established the possession, the onus of proving that such possession is justified or sufficiently excused shifts on to the accused party : Vide Calteaux v The King [1909 MR 16], Toofany v The Queen [1957 MR 186], Wong Kwock Yow v R [1935 MR 171] and Seeneevassen v R [1974 MR 225].

Therefore, once possession of stolen property has been established, the next step for the Magistrate is to consider the explanation of the accused party and decide whether such explanation is acceptable. It is only then that the test laid down in Gobin v The Queen [1896 MR 45] may be applied i.e. “Is the story of the possession a plausible, straightforward one, and one which he can believe? If he cannot believe it, the law, and not the Magistrate, says that the possessor of the property is guilty and is to be convicted.” It is clear that if the accused

party cannot account satisfactorily for his possession, the law attributes to him a guilty possession.”

10. It is worth noting that in the present matter, the prosecution has established that the tablet was the same tablet that was reported stolen by witness no.4. Furthermore, the search conducted at the accused’s place confirmed and established that the accused was indeed found in possession of the said tablet. The accused, upon being questioned, also admitted having purchased that tablet from one Rolo in the locality. The evidence on record establishes clearly that there is absolutely no dispute that the accused was in possession of the stolen property as particularised in the information. Thus, I need to consider only whether the accused had a sufficient excuse or justification.

11. The accused has not elicited any evidence in the present matter and therefore has not shown any sufficient excuse of justification. Furthermore, in his defence statement, he himself admitted that the had suspected the tablet to be a stolen property and nevertheless acquired same.

12. I therefore form the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and I find accused guilty as charged.

M I F NATHIRE Ag Senior District Magistrate This 30 th April 2026