Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 10 – Police v Kishore Bholah

Police v Kishore Bholah

2020 LPW 10

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

Cause Number 7886/19

In the matter of:

Police

v/s

Kishore Bholah

JUDGMENT

The Accused stands charged with the offences of (1) ALLOWING DOOR OF A PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE TO REMAIN OPEN WHEN IN MOTION in breach of Regulation 3 (ix) of GN 99/54 & section 190 (1) (3) of the Road Traffic Act (2) FAILING TO WEAR IN A CONSPICIOUS POSITION A CONDUCTOR BADGE DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT in breach of Regulation 12 A (2) of GN 99/54 & Sections 190 (1) (3) of the Road Traffic Act. The Accused pleaded guilty to the charge under Count 2 and he pleaded not guilty to the charge under Count 1 of the present information. He stood inops consilii at trial stage and the court proceedings were conducted in Creole language for his benefit.

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The Prosecution Witness No.1, PC Berry explained that he was on duty on 2 nd

November 2017 at 10 30 hours along Patsitadane street, Stanley when he saw a CNT bus coming in his direction. The main prosecution witness explained that when the bus in question turned, he clearly saw that the door of that public service vehicle was open while the bus continued to proceed ahead. The witness further stated that he saw that no one came forward to close the door and some 30 metres ahead he signalled the bus driver to stop the vehicle. The officer stated that he spoke to the bus conductor who told him that the bus driver was in charge of controlling the door. The officer explained that after talking to the driver, he was informed that due to a

defect the door had to be controlled manually by the bus conductor. Witness No.1 explained that he entered the driver’s cabin and confirmed his averments then proceeded to inform the bus conductor of the offence he had committed and duly contravened him. In court, he identified the Accused as being the said Mr Kishore Bholah, bus conductor he contravened. In cross examination Witness No.1 maintained that the door of the bus could only be operated manually on that day. The case was then closed for the prosecution.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

The Accused was explained his Constitutional Rights and elected to make a statement from the dock. He stated that on that day both he and the bus driver were contravened and he explained that the door of the bus could be operated by the bus driver on that day. The case was then closed for the Defence

I had the opportunity to hear both the Witness for the prosecution and the Accused. I have assessed both the deposition and demeanour of the contravening officer as well as that of the Accused. I take note that the Accused has not adduced any evidence to show why the version of the contravening officer, that is the version of the prosecution should not be relied upon by this court. I find that the main prosecution witness, Witness No.1 deposed in a clear and confident manner and he stood the test of cross examination. I find no reason to doubt his version in court.

For all the above mentioned reasons, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused party and I therefore find the latter guilty as charged under both counts of the present information.

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) District Magistrate This 30 th January 2020