Supreme Court of Mauritius, 7 janvier 2020, 2020 ROD 1 – POLICE v LAFONTANT JEAN BASID

POLICE v LAFONTANT JEAN BASID

2020 ROD 1

POLICE v LAFONTANT JEAN BASID

CN: 722/2019

THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:- POLICE

V/S

JEAN BASID LAFONTANT

———-

JUDGMENT Introduction. 1. Accused stands charged with the offence of possession of dangerous drugs in breach of section 34 (1) (b) and 47 (5) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended. Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by counsel at trial. The case for the prosecution. 2. On 12 February 2018, police officers posted at the Anti Drug and Smuggling Unit (“ADSU”) and among whom there were DPC Milazar and DPC Pierre Louis searched the premises of Accused at Montagne Charlot. The two police officers testified that on the material day, around 14.00 hours, during the search which took place at the premises of

Accused, a black parcel was found in the pocket of a short which was hooked on a wall over the bed of Accused. After Accused was informed of his constitutional rights and was questioned about the black parcel, Accused replied: “Haschish, pas pou moi ca”. The police officers proceeded with the search but no other incriminating items were found.

3. The illegal drug, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the statement recorded from Accused were produced at the trial.

The case for the defence.

4. For the defence, Accused stated from the dock that he was shown the search warrant and that the ADSU officers informed him of their presence when they came at his place. He sat on his bed during the search and at some point, while Accused was being questioned, Hashish was found when DPC Milazar searched the pocket of his trousers on the sixth time.

The law

5. As regards to the law, section 34 (1) (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act provides that:

Any person who unlawfully possesses, purchases, offer to purchase or transports any dangerous drug shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, and subject to subsections (2) and (5), be liable to a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

Assessments.

6. I have assessed all the evidence on record including the out of court statements of Accused.

7. In the present matter, the case for the prosecution rests on the evidence adduced by DPC Pierre Louis and DPC Milazar and their versions are as referred above. Having heard both versions in examination in chief and the answers given in cross examination, I find that both witnesses came forward as witnesses of truth. This is being said because both witnesses deponed without any hesitancy and without any indication of exaggeration or invention. Accused tried to suggest during the cross examination of both police officers that the ADSU officers did plant the illegal drug in the pocket of his short or that he was not informed of his rights. But if that was so, I cannot comprehend as to why Accused did not challenge the contents in his statement where it is said that Accused was informed of his constitutional rights. Furthermore, I find it illogical that the ADSU officers will put a piece of Hashish, which is not a common illegal drug to be found in Rodrigues in a short belonging to Accused and will do so in his presence.

8. Hence in the light of the above, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that Accused has failed to cast doubt in the prosecution case. I also find that the illegal drug which was found at the place of Accused belong to him and was in his possession.

Conclusion 9. Therefore, for the reasons referred above, I find Accused guilty as charged.

D.J.A Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 7 January 2020.