Supreme Court of Mauritius, 7 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 86 – Police v Mayput

1

Police v Mayput

2026 RDR 86

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIÈRE DU REMPART (Criminal Jurisdiction) In the matter of: CN: 6063/21 Police v Manukumar MAYPUT

JUDGMENT Accused is charged with the offence of bearing offensive weapon in breach of Section 29(1)(2) of the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act. He pleaded not guilty and was represented by Counsel Mr Ramkissoon. Prosecution’s case was conducted by Police Prosecutor and proceedings were in creole. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION Prosecution called its first witness, PC Busviah who solemnly affirmed that on 15.03.2020, he met with Accused and informed him of the charge against him and his constitutional rights. Accused gave statement voluntarily. Same was produced and marked as Document A. Counsel cross examined Witness No.1 and the following were elicited: – Accused is in plantation business together with his father; – The incident occurred at Goodlands market; – Accused’s father has a vegetable stall in Goodlands market; – According to Accused, he went to his field and plucked ridge gourd (cut with the offensive weapon) to bring to the market to sell at his father’s stall;

– Witness No.1 agreed that given the fact that Accused and his father are from the agricultural field, there is a reasonable explanation for the Accused to be in possession of the weapon. Witness No.1 was not re-examined and Prosecution moved to call Witness No.2, PC Palaram who solemnly affirmed that on the 14.03.2020, he was on duty at Royal Road Goodlands when a person approached him and informed him of a fight for which assistance of police was required. Witness No.2 explained that when he saw two persons fighting near a car and there were a lot of people surrounding them. Witness No. 2 then intervened and separated the two persons. Witness No.2 identified Accused as one of the persons fighting and the other person was one Mr Didier (Witness No.3). Witness No.2 testified that Mr Didier told him that Accused had a knife in his possession but upon searching Accused, nothing incriminating was found with him. A search was conducted in his vehicle and a knife was found on the driver seat. Accused was cautioned and questioned regarding the knife to which he stated that he received same as a gift. Witness No.2 produced the knife and it was marked as Exhibit 1. Under cross examination, Witness No.2 confirmed the following” – Accused did not have any weapon in his hand when he was allegedly in a fight with Witness No.3; – Knife was on passenger seat but does not know if it was for plantation. Witness No.2 was not re -examined and Prosecution moved to call the last witness, Mr Jacques Didier Dominique Pierre Louis (Witness No.3) who stated under oath that on the 14.03.2020, he made a complaint to the police station following a misunderstanding between him and the Accused. Witness No.3 could not remember the facts from memory and Prosecution moved to put the inconsistent statement to him. Counsel did not object and Court allowed the statement of Witness No.3 given to the police to be put to him. Witness No.3 agreed that Accused took a knife with him but he could not remember any other facts. Witness No.3 was cross examined by Counsel and upon questions put to him, he stated:

– Following the incident, he was prosecuted for a case of assault; – He could not remember if Accused used any weapon to beat or hurt him; – He did a withdrawal earlier in this matter. Witness No.3 was not re-examined and case was closed for the Prosecution CASE FOR THE DEFENCE The Accused gave evidence under oath. He solemnly affirmed that on the material day he went to the Goodlands market to deliver the vegetables to his father. Since there is no parking, he delivered the vegetables and headed to look for a parking. Near SBM, he saw Witness No.3’s car and a dispute arose. He was in his car and Witness No.3 hit him. he got panicked and since there was the knife in the passenger seat, he showed it to Witness No.3 to scare him. Then Witness No.3 went to call the police officer. Accused maintained that he used the knife to harvest vegetables to bring to the Goodlands market. He even produced a document showing that his father has a vegetable stall. He also produced a birth certificate showing the relationship between him and the stall owner being his father. Accused was cross examined by the Prosecution. He stated under oath that: – The offensive weapon is imported and used as a decor; he received same as a gift from a friend; – The said knife is usually kept with other objects used for harvesting vegetables; – When police came on the spot, they did not question him regarding the knife but rather they assisted him as he was injured; – It was only after taking statement that the police searched the vehicle and they found the knife; – He maintained that he had a legitimate reason to be in possession of the knife. Accused was re-examined by Counsel and he stated that when he went to Goodlands police station as part of the process, police searched his vehicle and upon finding the knife, police informed him that he may be prosecuted for the offence of bearing offensive weapon and Accused gave explanation. SUBMISSIONS

Learned Counsel referred to the case of Thomas v The Queen [1968 MR 1] and to the case of Police v Leonide [1976 MR 250]. He submitted that Prosecution’s witness has agreed that Accused had a reason to be in possession of the knife which purpose was for harvesting vegetables. Such purpose is legitimate. He further submitted that Accused furnished explanation for the possession of the knife – same was used for harvesting vegetables. The main complainant pleaded guilty for the case of assault against Accused which happened on that material day. Therefore, Counsel submitted that case be dismissed against Accused. LAW Section 29 of the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act provides as follows: (1) “Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof of which shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon, shall commit on offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years and to a fine not exceeding 100,000 rupees. (2) Where any person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the Court may make an order for the forfeiture or disposal of any weapon in respect of which the offence was committed. […]” It is now settled law that while the Accused enjoys the constitutional right to presumption of innocence, the onus of proving reasonable excuse of lawful authority lies on the Accused for an offence under Section 29 (supra). I find it apt to quote the following from the case of Police v Leonide (supra) as referred to by Counsel: “It emerges clearly from the passage quoted from the judgment in Thomas vs. R. that the Court has read the regulation under review in that case as prohibiting the possession of an offensive weapon of the kind defined subject to an excuse or authority and placing upon the accused the burden of proving the existence of the excuse or authority. Such an enactment would come within the class of legislation which, as explained in Police vs. Fra, is not violative of the accused's fundamental rights.” ANALYSIS It is undisputed that the Accused was in possession of a knife. The Court firstly has to assess whether the knife is an offensive weapon within the meaning of Section 29

(supra). To assess same, it has to be one which common use is to cause harm. To that effect, reference is made to the following extract: “In practice, only the carriage of an article which is offensive per se, that is to say, one the normal or common use of which is to cause injury or damage, would reasonably attract the attention of those responsible for the preservation of peace and order and call for some kind of justification.” (Police v Leonide supra) Now, the Prosecution has called three witnesses and they all explained the circumstances under which the Accused was found in possession of the offensive weapon. I have had the opportunity to assess the demeanour of Witness No.3 and he admitted that Accused did not harm him with the knife. He also admitted that everything was a misunderstanding. The Witness No.2 also admitted that Accused did not possess the knife with him when he arrived the spot. The knife was found on the passenger seat of the vehicle. Accused chose to testify under oath. He explained that he used the knife as it was the only item available to him to harvest the vegetable. He deponed in a clear and concise manner. He withstood the test of cross examination. Applying the principles of Leonide and having heard the Accused, I find that the Accused has shown sufficient excuse to be in possession of the offensive weapon. CONCLUSION In light of the above, I find the Accused not guilty. Case is dismissed and the Exhibit to be forfeited.

Ms O.LUCHOO Temporary District Magistrate 07.04.2026