{"id":1061012,"date":"2026-06-08T01:50:02","date_gmt":"2026-06-07T23:50:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/"},"modified":"2026-06-08T01:50:02","modified_gmt":"2026-06-07T23:50:02","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 – POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN<\/p>\n

2020 INT 23<\/p>\n

POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN Cause Number: 201\/19 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Criminal Division)<\/p>\n

POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION In the present case, the Accused stands charged under 3 different Counts of the Information as follows: (i) Under Count 1, he stands charged with the offence of drug dealing \u2013 possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution in breach of sections 30(1)(f)(i) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act; (ii) Under Count 2, he stands charged with the offence of possession of article for use in connection with the smoking of cannabis in breach of sections 34(1)(c) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act; (iii) Under Count 3, he stands convicted with the offence of smoking cannabis in breach of sections 34(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The Accused pleaded not guilty to Count 1, pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 3 and was assisted by Counsel. The particulars of the charge against the Accused are that on or about the 28 th<\/p>\n

November 2017, he unlawfully and knowingly, possessed particles of nicotine and cannabis contained in a smoking device, 1.16 g of nicotine and cannabis contained in a sheet of ruled<\/p>\n

paper and 5.51 g of cannabis contained in a white plastic cylindrical container marked \u201cYeeginko Tablet\u201d fitted with a white cap, for the purpose of distribution. It is also alleged that on the same day, the Accused unlawfully and knowingly had in his possession one smoking device, colour brown and white, fitted with a metal pipe containing charred particles of nicotine and cannabis, for use in connection with the smoking of cannabis. The particulars also aver that on the 27 th November 2017, the Accused unlawfully and knowingly smoked cannabis.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS On the 28 th November 2017, following information received, PC Valsain effected a search in the residence of the Accused together with PC Virginie and an ADSU team. He testified that a bodily search on the Accused did not reveal anything illegal. He then searched the Accused\u2019s room and in presence of Accused and PC Virginie, he found behind the Accused\u2019s bed, a smoking device containing leaves suspected to be cannabis. Upon being questioned and explained of his rights, the Accused stated as follows: \u201cMo fine servi sa bong la pou mo fume gandia\u201d. PC Valsain continued the search and found on a table, a sheet of ruled paper wrapping cannabis mixed with tobacco. Upon being confronted with same, the Accused replied: \u201cmo fine m\u00e9lange gandia et tabac pou mo fumer\u201d. PC Valsain proceeded with the search and secured a plastic container containing leaves suspected to be cannabis. PC Valsain informed the Accused of the evidence against him and questioned the Accused to which the latter replied: \u201c1 partie gandia ki mo ti pou partager avec mo banes camarades\u201d. PC Valsain informed the Accused of the offences, arrested the Accused and conveyed him to the ADSU office. The exhibits secured by PC Valsain were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) where they were examined. The particles revealed the presence of nicotine and cannabis. The 1.16 grams of leaf matter in the sheet of ruled paper revealed the presence of nicotine and cannabis. The 5.51 g of leaf matter in the plastic cylindrical container revealed the presence of cannabis. The version of the Accused is contained in his statement given to the police and his testimony in Court. He confirmed that a police search in his residence revealed the presence of a smoking device (bong) for use in connection with the smoking of cannabis, particles of<\/p>\n

nicotine and cannabis in the smoking device, a sheet of ruled paper containing nicotine and cannabis as well as a cylindrical container containing cannabis. The Accused explained that he used the bong to smoke cannabis which he mixed with tobacco and kept some cannabis in a cylindrical container for future smoking purposes. He also conceded that he smoked cannabis on the 27 th November 2017. The Accused denied that he was in possession of cannabis for the purposes of distribution. In Court, the Accused declared that the statements given to the police reflect the truth. He maintained that he never intended to distribute the cannabis. He further explained that in the year 2016, he participated in a manifestation where he was arrested and subjected to police brutality.<\/p>\n

OBSERVATIONS I have assessed the evidence on record. The Accused is charged with three offences. For the sake of clarity, I shall deal with each Count of the Information in turn.<\/p>\n

Count 1 Under Count 1 of the Information, the Accused stands charged with the offence of drug dealing. To establish the case against the Accused, the Prosecution must prove the following elements of the offence: (i) possession of drugs; (ii) for the purpose of distribution.<\/p>\n

THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN RELATION TO POSSESSION OF DRUGS The concept of possession of drugs has been well laid down in the case of CHORAMUN I v STATE OF MAURITIUS (2014) SCJ 69 . In this case, the basic principle in relation to possession of drugs as explained in DPP V BROOKS (1974) AC 862 which were reproduced in OMARSAIB V THE STATE [1996 SCJ 30] were cited in approval, namely that \u2013 \u201cIn the ordinary use of the word \u2018possession\u2019 one has in one\u2019s possession whatever is, to one\u2019s own knowledge, physically in one\u2019s custody or under one\u2019s physical control.\u201d<\/p>\n

It has further been laid down in the case of NAWOOR VS THE QUEEN (1948) MR 104 quoted in approval in the case of CURPENEN VS THE STATE (2000) SCJ 245 that: \u201c(\u2026) it was not necessary to establish manual possession; it was essential, however, in our judgment that there should have been proof of some \u201covert act\u201d or circumstance connecting that particular accused with the articles found; thus justifying the inference that those articles were at least under his control, exclusive or joint\u201d. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN RELATION TO POSSESSION OF DRUGS The concept of possession of drugs has been well laid down in the case of CHORAMUN I v STATE OF MAURITIUS (2014) SCJ 69 . In this case, the basic principle in relation to possession of drugs as explained in DPP V BROOKS (1974) AC 862 which were reproduced in OMARSAIB V THE STATE [1996 SCJ 30] were cited in approval, namely that \u2013 \u201cIn the ordinary use of the word \u2018possession\u2019 one has in one\u2019s possession whatever is, to one\u2019s own knowledge, physically in one\u2019s custody or under one\u2019s physical control.\u201d It has further been laid down in the case of NAWOOR VS THE QUEEN (1948) MR 104 quoted in approval in the case of CURPENEN VS THE STAT E (2000) SCJ 245 that: \u201c(\u2026) it was not necessary to establish manual possession; it was essential, however, in our judgment that there should have been proof of some \u201covert act\u201d or circumstance connecting that particular accused with the articles found; thus justifying the inference that those articles were at least under his control, exclusive or joint\u201d.<\/p>\n

POSSESSION OF DRUGS In the present case, the Accused conceded that when the police searched his house, the police found a smoking device containing particles of nicotine and cannabis, a sheet of ruled paper containing nicotine and cannabis as well as a cylindrical container containing cannabis. These belonged to the Accused. In his unsworn statement, the Accused made it clear that the cannabis were for him and was intended for smoking purposes. He confirmed the averments of his statement under oath in Court. It is therefore clear that the Accused was in physical possession of the leaf matter and was aware of the contents of the drugs. I deem it to refer to the case of WARNER V METROPOLITA N POLICE COMMISSIONE R (1969) 2AC 256 where the concept of possession was defined as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cPOSSESSION, the visible possibility of exercising physical control over a thing coupled with the intention of doing so, either against all the world, or against all the world except certain persons. There are, therefore, three requisites of possession. First, there must be actual or potential physical control. Secondly, physical control is not possession, unless accompanied by intention; hence, if a thing is put into the hand of a sleeping person, he has not possession of it. Thirdly, the possibility and intention must be visible or evidenced by external signs, for if the thing shows no signs of being under the control of anyone, it is not possession\u2026 \u2026\u201d. The question resolves itself into one as to the nature and extent of the mental element which is involved in \u201cpossession\u201d as that word is used in the section now being considered. In my view, in order to establish possession the prosecution must prove that an accused was knowingly in control of something in circumstances which showed that he was asserting to being in control of it\u201d. Applying the above dicta in the present case, I find that the Accused had knowledge and control over the drugs found in his possession as he knowingly bought same and kept the drugs in his house. The overt act connecting the Accused to the drugs is the fact that the drugs were found in the premises of the Accused and the Accused\u2019s own acknowledgment that he kept same. In the circumstances, I find that the Prosecution has established that the Accused was in possession of cannabis.<\/p>\n

FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION Having found that the Accused was in possession of cannabis, I shall proceed to determine whether the Accused was in possession of same for the purpose of distribution. The DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT does not define the word \u2018distribution\u2019. \u201cAs distribution has not been defined, it must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning\u201d. (PUTTAROO VS THE STATE (2008) SCJ 92). The Oxford dictionary defines the term \u2018distribute\u2019 as \u2018hand or share out to a number of recipients or to supply\u2019. In the case of PUTTAROO VS THE STATE (2008) SCJ 92 , the Court laid down as follows: \u201cNo doubt it is difficult to have direct evidence of the intention and this can only be inferred from surrounding circumstantial evidence\u201d.<\/p>\n

I have therefore considered all the circumstantial evidence in this case to determine if the Accused was in possession of drugs for the purpose of distribution.<\/p>\n

Quantity of drugs It is a general principle that the quantity of drugs involved is reflective of the purpose of distribution. In the case of STATE VS ASSAME H D AND ANOR (2011) SCJ 177 , the Court found that given the quantity of drugs involved and the street value thereof, \u201cthe only logical, reasonable and irresistible inference that can be drawn is that the drug could not have been meant for their consumption but was meant for distribution or supply\u201d. In the present case, the police secured 7.16 grams of cannabis bearing a value of Rs 4,000 from the Accused. I find that the quantity of the drugs secured from the Accused is of considerable quantity. It is the version of the Accused that the cannabis leaves were for his own personal consumption. However, I have noted that the cannabis was found in 3 different places in the Accused\u2019s house. Some were in a smoking device, some were in a sheet of ruled paper and some were in a cylindrical container. It is to be noted that the cannabis used for smoking purposes were mixed with cannabis. The leaf matter in the cylindrical container was not mixed with cannabis such that it can be inferred that the leaf matter in the cylindrical container could have been used for distribution. I say so because PC Valsain testified that when he intercepted the Accused and confronted him with the evidence secured, the Accused said that he mixed the cannabis with nicotine for smoking purposes and he kept the rest in the cylindrical container for the purpose of distributing some of the cannabis. I have found that PC Valsain deposed well in Court. He spoke fluently, with an ease of a witness of truth. I find no reason to doubt his version as being true, the moreso that he deposed in his capacity as a police officer on duty at the material time. I therefore find credence in his version that the Accused told the police that he was in possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution. I find that the amount of cannabis secured from the Accused\u2019s premises is considerable for one person and suggests that it is of much larger quantity than was needed for the Accused\u2019s own personal consumption. (RE: SHERIFF VS R (2008) SCJ 92). This explains why<\/p>\n

the Accused had to keep some cannabis away. I find that the quantity of drugs secured from the Accused is more reflective of distribution than consumption.<\/p>\n

Co-existing circumstances I have borne in mind that before the Court can reach the conclusion that the Accused was in possession of drugs for the purpose of distribution, it must consider whether \u201cthere are no other co-existing circumstances which could either be consistent with the fact that the drugs were meant to be used for the appellant\u2019s (Accused\u2019s) consumption or could weaken or destroy the inference that the drugs were meant for distribution\u201d. (RE: LOBINE VS THE STATE (2004) SCJ 326). In the case of KARRIMBUCCUS VS THE STAT E (2004) SCJ 200, the Court reached the conclusion that the drugs on the Appellant were meant for distribution in view of, inter alia, the quantity of the drugs involved, the fact that they were sealed in small plastic sachets, there was an electronic scale bearing traces of heroin in the Appellant\u2019s house and a huge sum of money secured. In the present case, I have considered if there are any co-existing circumstances or evidence to confirm that the drugs found on the Accused were meant for distribution. I have noted that the Accused mixed the cannabis with nicotine for smoking purposes. He kept the rest of the cannabis in a cylindrical container. I find that the manner in which the drugs were kept is suggestive that the drugs could have been put to different uses. Moreover, the Accused explained in the year 2016, the Accused participated in a manifestation with regards the legalisation of cannabis whereby the Accused was allegedly subjected to police brutality, following which the Accused organised conference to reveal the said brutality. However, the Accused conceded that he never personally encountered any problem with PC Valsain. In addition, PS Gunessee who recorded the statement of the Accused explained to the Court that it was only after the Accused\u2019s arrest that he came to know about the Accused\u2019s participation in the manifestation. I therefore find that I cannot relate the Accused\u2019s arrest in relation to the present case to the fact that the Accused manifested against the police following alleged police brutality. I do not find that the Accused\u2019s involvement in the present case was due to bad blood. It occurred because the Accused was in possession of cannabis<\/p>\n

which, according to the evidence and the Accused\u2019s own averment at the time of arrest, was for the purpose of distribution. Taking into account all the co-existing circumstances, namely the quantity of the drugs secured and the way in which the drugs were kept, I find that they support the inference that the drugs were meant for distribution. There are no factors or circumstances which destroy this inference. I therefore reach the logical, reasonable and irresistible inference that the cannabis secured from the Accused was for the purpose of distribution. I find that the Prosecution has established the charge under Count 1 against the Accused.<\/p>\n

Counts 2 and 3 Under Count 2, the Accused stands charged with the offence of possession of article for use in connection with the smoking of cannabis and under Count 3, the Accused stands charged with the offence of smoking cannabis. I have noted that in the statement of the Accused to the police, he confessed that he was in possession of article for use in connection with the smoking of cannabis as well as the fact that he smoked cannabis on the 27 th November 2017. I have borne in mind that \u201ca voluntary confession by an accused party that was direct and positive and had been satisfactorily proved was the best evidence that could be produced by the prosecution against the accused\u201d. (RE: DPP VS J.P.AUMONT (1989) SCJ 338). The Accused pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 3 of the Information. \u201cThe best proof of guilt is the fact that the respondent pleaded guilty to the offence \u2013 vide DPP v Aumont [1998 SCJ 338]; Gungadin v The Magistrate, Intermediate Court [1995 SCJ 31]\u201d. (RE: THE DPP VS RAMDEEN A H (2005) SCJ 198). The guilty plea of the Accused in relation to Counts 2 and 3 of the Information constitutes an admission of the facts against him in relation to Counts 2 and 3 of the Information. In light of the undisputed guilty plea of the Accused for Counts 2 and 3 of the Information, I find that the Prosecution has established the charge under Counts 2 and 3 of the Information against the Accused.<\/p>\n

CONCLUSION In light of the above, I find that the Prosecution has proved all 3 Counts against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. I find the Accused guilty as charged under all 3 Counts of the Information as follows:<\/p>\n

(i) Under Count 1, with the offence of drug dealing \u2013 possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution in breach of sections 30(1)(f)(i) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act; (ii) Under Count 2, with the offence of possession of article for use in connection with the smoking of cannabis in breach of sections 34(1)(c) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act; (iii) Under Count 3, with the offence of smoking cannabis in breach of sections 34(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act.<\/p>\n

Judgment delivered by: M.GAYAN-JAULIMSING, Magistrate, Intermediate Court Judgment delivered on: 5 th February 2020<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a> · PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN 2020 INT 23 POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN Cause Number: 201\/19 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Criminal Division) POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION In the present case, the Accused stands charged under 3 different Counts of the Information as follows: (i) Under Count 1, he stands charged with the offence of drug dealing \u2013 possession of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[125247],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[130473,130472,8066],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1061012","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-mrs-m-gayan-jaulimsing-magistrate-intermediate-court","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-maighanaden","kji_keyword-pareemanun","kji_keyword-police","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 - POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 - POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN 2020 INT 23 POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN Cause Number: 201\/19 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Criminal Division) POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION In the present case, the Accused stands charged under 3 different Counts of the Information as follows: (i) Under Count 1, he stands charged with the offence of drug dealing \u2013 possession of...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 - POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-07T23:50:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 – POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 - POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 - POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN","og_description":"POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN 2020 INT 23 POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN Cause Number: 201\/19 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Criminal Division) POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION In the present case, the Accused stands charged under 3 different Counts of the Information as follows: (i) Under Count 1, he stands charged with the offence of drug dealing \u2013 possession of...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 - POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-07T23:50:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-fevrier-2020-2020-int-23-police-vs-pareemanun-maighanaden\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 INT 23 – POLICE VS PAREEMANUN MAIGHANADEN"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/1061012","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1061012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1061012"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1061012"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1061012"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1061012"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1061012"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1061012"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1061012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}