Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 juin 2020, 2020 MBG 3 – POLICE V PARTHYNAIKO . N

POLICE V PARTHYNAIKO . N

2020 MBG 3

CN: 4989/19

THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRAND PORT

IN THE MATTER OF:- POLICE V PARTHYNAIKO NICKHIL

JUDGMENT

Accused stands charged with the offences of: (1) Driving a motor vehicle with unauthorized lamps fitted thereto in breach of Regulations 50 and 125 of GN 53/2010 made under Section 105 and 190 of the Road Traffic; (2) Driving motor vehicle without displaying an insurance vignette in breach of Section 57A (2) (b) and Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act coupled with Regulation 3 of the Road Traffic (Insurance Vignette) Regulations of Government Notice 72/2004.

Accused pleaded not guilty to both counts and appeared inops consilii at trial stage. The court proceedings were conducted in creole for the benefit of the Accused.

The Prosecution produced the NTA certificate of motor vehicle bearing registration number 90 ZN 00 (marked as Doc A).

Prosecution called PC Ramphul (witness 1) who deposed to the effect that on 27 March 2017 whilst he was on duty at Royal Road, Beau Vallon, he saw private car bearing registration number 90 ZN 00 which was going towards Mahebourg. He saw a flashing light colour blue, white and red on the said vehicle and he signalled the driver to stop. The driver introduced himself as one Nikhil Parthynaiko. The witness identified the Accused in Court as being the said Nikhil Parthynaiko. Witness 2 further stated that he noticed that there was no insurance vignette affixed on the said vehicle. The Accused was informed of the offences he committed and that he was being contravened for these offences. The witness identified and produced a copy of the PF 3 issued to the Accused (marked as Doc B). The Accused chose not to cross examined the witness and that was the case for the Prosecution.

Upon being informed of his constitutional rights, the Accused elected to remain silent.

I have assessed all the evidence on record. I find that PC Ramphul deposed well in court. He spoke in a clear, convincing and straightforward manner and had no difficulty to put forward his version of events. The Court finds no reason to doubt his version.

This Court finds that the prosecution has established a strong and unshaken prima facie case and in the absence of any evidence from the accused, this Court is perfectly entitled to conclude that the prosecution evidence has remained unrebutted.

At this juncture, I find it apt to reproduce an extract from the case of Andoo v. The Queen 1989 SCJ 257:- “Where the evidence for the prosecution establishes a strong and unshaken prima facie case and the accused chooses not to swear to this statement and expose himself to cross examination, the trial Court is perfectly entitled to conclude that the prosecution evidence remains unrebutted. It is of course true that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused squarely lies on the prosecution and that the accused is entitled to remain silent. His right to silence, however, is exercised at his risk and peril when, at the closed of the case for the prosecution, a prima facie case has been clearly established since the burden then shifts on him to satisfy the Court that it should not act on the evidence adduced by the prosecution.”

In view of the above, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. I find the Accused guilty as charged on Count I and Count II.

P. VEERABADRAN- MUDALIAR Ag. District Magistrate 30 June 2020