Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 avril 2026, 2026 PL2 9 – POLICE V RIYAAD PEERTUM

Page 1 of 9

POLICE V RIYAAD PEERTUM

2026 PL2 9

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT-LOUIS (2 nd Division)

CN: 4474/24

In the matter of:

POLICE

v

RIYAAD PEERTUM

JUDGMENT 1. Accused is prosecuted for the offence of “forgery by private individual of public writing” in breach of section 108(a) and 121 of the Criminal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. He was represented at the trial by Counsel, Me A.Rujub, and the prosecution was led by Me D.Dahoo assisted by PS Toofany. The proceedings were held in creole.

2. In a gist, the case for the prosecution is as follows. On or about the 28 th September 2022, the accused, a social worker, wilfully and unlawfully committed a forgery in public writing. It is contended that he inserted the name of one Mrs Zaheerah Banu Poomun on a COVID-19 vaccination card and recorded vaccination details on the card to make it appear that the said Mrs Poomun had received a dose. Such conduct was of a nature to cause prejudice. The enquiry 3. Inspector Golap on 28/09/22, accompanied by officers of the DCIU and the CID, led by Inspector Louise, proceeded to the Al Hudaibiyyah Islamic Centre. Thereat, they met with the accused together with three other persons, one of whom was his twin brother. After producing a search warrant, the accused consented to a search of the

Page 2 of 9

premises. Several items were recovered from the accused’s desk. These included a stamp bearing the inscription of the Ministry of Health & Wellness, six COVID-19 vaccination cards with the heading of “Ministry of Health & Wellness”, as well as photocopies of similar vaccination cards. The cards bore various names, among which was the name of one Mrs Zaheerah Banu Poomun. When being confronted with the exhibits, the accused stated “ça stamp la pou ministere la sante ça. Mo fine ramasse ça la rue Magon, et mo fer fausse card vaccin pou aide dimoune pou alle fer umrah”.

4. The police thereafter carried-out a search of a car, the keys to which were in possession of the accused. That search was carried-out in the presence of the accused. Near to the automatic gear, the police found the original national identity cards of Mrs Zaheerah Banu Poomun and of one Mohammed N. Dookhy, who are wife and husband. When questioned on these items, the accused stated “mo ti pe fer carte vaccin pou ça 2 dimounes la”. He further accepted that he was the only one making counterfeit vaccination cards and that no other individuals at the Al Hudaibiyyah Islamic Centre had knowledge of, or was involved in. The accused was then arrested.

5. After his arrest, the police proceeded to his dwelling house for a further search. There, the police seized several vaccination cards, a grey envelope bearing the following handwritten note “4 hajees to collect today at 1PM”, photocopies of COVID-19 vaccination cards and electronic air tickets of five individuals. When confronted with those items, the accused conceded “ça aussi mo fine fausser”.

6. PC 9206 Chandoo confirming the above version given by Inspector Golap, also testified that all exhibits were seized, and secured in three plastic bags, each of which bore the signature of the accused. The exhibits were not tampered with and were produced in Court without objection. Exhibit 1 contains materials discovered at the office desk of the accused, Exhibit 2, those seized from the motor vehicle, and, Exhibit 3, the items seized from his dwelling house.

7. SI Burumdoyal produced a report (Document D) regarding the examination of the exhibits. In relation to the documents bearing the name of Mrs Zaheerah Banu Poomun, he concluded that they contained two stamp impressions which matched the specimen impression obtained from the office of the accused. In cross-examination, he explained he could not reach a definitive conclusion on the handwriting, as no materials were given to him for comparison purposes.

8. When he was re-examined, he explained that in any event the handwriting attributed to the accused contained variations in both words and figures. In his opinion, such inconsistencies indicated that the accused has tried to modify his handwriting.

Page 3 of 9

9. PS 8392 Rummun recorded four statements from the accused (Doc A, A1, A2 and A3). In his first statement, recorded on 28/09/22, the accused confessed that “mo ti pran ça carte vaccin vide la mo ecrire sa madame la so nom Zaheerah Banu Poomun … et mone aussi rempli place carte vaccin et mo mette deux stamp”. He further goes on to admit that “carte vaccin li fausse”, and that “mo meme ki mone fer ça”. The accused thus made a clear admission that he had taken a blank vaccination card, inserted thereon the name of Mrs Zaheerah Banu Poomun, completed the relevant entries, and affixed two stamps. He acknowledged that the vaccination card was false and accepted, that he had fabricated it (the impugned vaccine card). The accused reaffirmed the above account in his subsequent statements (A1, A2 and A3), recorded respectively on 12/10/22, 10/10/23, and 02/02/24.

10. PS Rummun, referring to a correspondence from the Ministry of Health, confirmed that at the time the impugned vaccine card was made, the said Mrs Poomun had not received any COVID-19 vaccination. (Doc B).

11. Under cross-examination, PS Rummun confirmed that the accused was arrested on 28/09/22 and, under the instruction of Divisional Commander, Mr Madhow, he was remanded to police cell. The accused was detained at the Plaine-Verte police station at around 16h20, and at 21hr, following the recording of his first statement, he was released on parole, as per further instructions from Mr Madhow.

12. PS Rummun stated that his enquiry further revealed that it was the husband of Mrs Poonum (Mohammed N. Dookhy) who provided her identity particulars to one Mr Badulla, of the Islamic Cultural Centre. As per the statement recorded from the husband of Mrs Poomun, it was the said Mr Badulla who had to do the needful to show that Mrs Poomun and his husband had been vaccinated and/or to have their vaccination card forged. It is to be noted at this juncture that Mr Mohammed N. Dookhy was neither a witness for the prosecution nor for the defence.

13. Finally, PC 10093 Mohamod on 17/10/22 accompanied the accused to the IT Unit of the police to have his mobile phone examined. Nothing incriminating was discovered on the accused’s mobile phone.

The version of the accused in Court 14. The accused, in court, elected to speak under oath. He stated that it was upon the advice of his then Counsel that he made the admissions in his out-of-court statements. He also alleged that he was also instructed not to disclose the name of then Chairman of the Islamic Cultural Centre, Mr Badulla, who is now deceased.

Page 4 of 9

15. He further accepted that all the items seized were found in his possession but denied he was the one who committed the forgeries. The accused claimed he did not know either Mr Dookhy or Mrs Poomun, but, explained that he had previously became acquainted with Mr Badulla, and that it was Mr Badulla who told him that ‘someone’ would collect the documents from him. Subsequently, Mr Badulla passed-away in Saudi-Arabia.

16. Under cross-examination, the accused accepted that even though he had given five statements to the police, this was the first time that he gave the version he gave today in Court.

17. He was further questioned regarding two of his statements which were recorded in the absence of his then Counsel. He accepted that despite the Counsel absence, he made no complaint at any stage of the enquiry, and acknowledged he did not hire the services of any other Counsel to give the version he now gave in Court.

18. The accused further accepted that, at the time of his arrest, Mr Badulla had already passed away. He however maintained that the vaccination cards had been handed- over to him before Mr Badulla’s death. When pressed in cross-examination to explain how it could be that his then Counsel had advised him not to mention the name of a person who was already deceased, the accused simply stated that he was maintaining the version of events he had given before the Court.

19. The defence further called WPC 519 Icchamye, who produced the relevant diary book entries recording events from the time of the accused’s arrest. The accused, in conclusion, maintained that he was not the author of the forged vaccination cards. Analysis 20. The section of the law under which the accused is being prosecuted is Section 108(a) of the Criminal Code which makes it an offence when a person “… commits a forgery in an authenticated and public writing, or in a commercial or bank writing by (a)by counterfeiting or altering any writing, date or signature, or by the use of a fictitious name; (b) …”

21. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, vide Bauhadoor v The State [2022 SCJ 149], it was held that: “We read from Dalloz, Répertoire de Droit Pénal et de Procédure Pénale, Tome III on Faux en Écriture, at note 1, that, in order to constitute forgery, the alteration of truth must have been committed “dans une intention frauduleuse” and be “de nature à porter préjudice à autrui”.

Page 5 of 9

22. Therefore, the elements constituting the offence of forgery are: (1) alteration of truth, in a public writing, (2) with fraudulent intention, and (3) of a nature to cause prejudice to another.

23. It is trite law that an Information must contain the essential elements of the offence, and it is noted that the Information was amended without any objections to aver the element of “prejudice”.

24. The legal issues to be determined in this present matter are:

(a) whether a COVID‑19 vaccination card is an “authenticated and public writing” for s108 purposes;

(b) whether the accused’s statements/admissions are admissible and reliable, and what weight to attach given the defence allegation of improper detention/release and asserted non‑voluntariness (despite no admissibility challenge at trial);

(c) evaluation of the forensic stamp and handwriting evidence, including the defence reliance on warnings about the fallibility of handwriting comparison; and,

(d) proof of mens rea (“intention frauduleuse”) and prejudice (“de nature à porter préjudice”). The law 25. Section 108 of the Criminal Code criminalises forgery by a private person in “an authenticated and public writing” by “counterfeiting or altering any writing… or … fictitious name”. Section 110 provides that nothing in sections 106 to 109 shall apply to forgery committed in passports or in certificates mentioned in sections 114 to 120. Section 120 addresses “false certificate or false permission of any other description” where injury, Treasury prejudice, or unlawful advantage might result. Section 121 provides an additional or alternative fine: a person guilty of any kind of forgery “shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 100,000 rupees… in substitution to or in addition to” imprisonment/penal servitude. 26. Section 162 of the Courts Act provides that “the English law of evidence… shall prevail and be applied in all courts of Mauritius”, unless otherwise provided, and, section 10

Page 6 of 9

of the Constitution provides for the right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence. Alteration of truth 27. On the evidence before this Court, the accused: (i) possessed several vaccination cards (some filled, some blank, and some photocopied), (ii) possessed a stamp with the logo of the Ministry of Health, and (iii) repeatedly admitted he wrote the name, filled the card, and affixed stamps, and did so to create “false cards” for travel purposes. Therefore, the criminal act occurred the moment the name of Mrs Zaheerah Banu Poomun was inserted on the vaccination card with vaccination details added thereon so as to present a false state of affairs.

28. In Jahangeer v The State & Ors (2025 SCJ 98), the Supreme Court retained the proposition that even where there is a handwriting expert report, it is not binding, and the trial court may reach its own conclusion on the issue, considering all evidence before it. In a gist, expert opinion is not a substitute for the court’s findings, but such expert opinion may assist the court in its analysis.

29. Even if handwriting comparison is inconclusive, the prosecution does not need to prove authorship by forensic handwriting alone when there is direct confession together with corroborative surrounding circumstances. The handwriting concern raised in the defence submission goes to weight, not to legal impossibility. I therefore find the first element proved beyond reasonable doubt.

An authenticated public writing 30. To determine whether a particular document has the character of an authenticated and public writing, it must be shown that the said document was drafted by a public officer, in the name of the public authority, after having delegated its powers to him. Not every writing by a public officer is entitled to the description of “public writing” but only those which were drafted by public officers in the exercise of those delegated powers, which gives the character of public writings, vide Ibrahim v. The Queen (1965) MR 93 and Chowbay v. The Queen (1966) MR 24.

31. Applying that test, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a COVID‑19 vaccination record card bearing the heading of the Ministry and used as official proof of vaccination is of the class of documents intended to be completed and authenticated by persons acting under authority delegated from the Ministry and to certify a person’s vaccination status.

Page 7 of 9

32. I am comforted in my views, first with the accused’s own explanation: he forged cards “to help people … to travel”. Therefore, it is a type of document which is relied upon by authorities and third parties as public proof. A counterfeit that no one would accept would not serve the accused’s admitted intention.

33. Secondly, the forensic report links the stamp impressions on the impugned card(s) to the stamp recovered from the accused’s office. The stamp is not a private emblem but a governmental seal representation. A forgery stamped with a Ministry seal clearly shows the intention into attempting to counterfeit a public form of writing.

34. To add to the above, I do not find the absence of a witness from the relevant ministry to be fatal. The nature of the impugned documents is evident on its face. The accused’s admissions demonstrate the intended public reliance, and corroborating physical evidence (seal, multiple cards, identity cards) exists.

35. The charge before the court is section 108(a) and the act proved is the counterfeiting and/or altering of a Ministry vaccination record card in a manner purporting to create an authenticated public record. Accordingly, I find the “public writing” element proved beyond reasonable doubt. Fraudulent Intention 36. Th purpose of a vaccination card in pandemic conditions is to allow institutions such as health systems, border authorities, carriers, and religious travel organisers, to place reliance on that document. A forged vaccination card (i) undermines the integrity of the State’s vaccination record system, (ii) creates the risk of unlawful advantage by facilitating travel based on vaccination status, and (iii) it creates a social danger by enabling unvaccinated persons to present as vaccinated, compromising public health.

37. Fraudulent intention is proved by the accused’s repeated admissions that the card was “false” and that he made it so as to appear genuine. If the accused knowingly fabricated an official‑type record, he necessarily knew he was altering truth and that it was of a nature to prejudice the public faith attached to such documents.

38. As such, I find the mens rea and prejudice element proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused’s defence 39. The defence fails for the following reasons:

(a) The accused stated he did not commit the forgeries and that the acts are linked to Islamic Cultural Centre via Mr Badulla. This statement came into light only in court,

Page 8 of 9

and despite the fact the accused has given a contrary version to the police in several out-of-court statements over several years.

(b) The defence does not produce any coherent explanation for the accused’s possession, in his workspace, vehicle and residence, of numerous vaccination cards and a Ministry‑type stamp.

(c) The confession evidence is repeated across time. If as claimed, the first statement was given upon his then counsel instructions, the later reaffirmations substantially erode that contention.

(d) The “unlawful detention” or “parole release” argument, as put forward by Counsel for the defence, is not supported by a causal link to false confession, especially where subsequent statements were available to correct and retract and where no contemporaneous complaints have ever been recorded. Conclusion 40. The present act of forgery was deliberate and calculated to falsify a public health document issued by the State, at a time when the world, including Mauritius, was confronting one of the most serious public health crisis in modern history.

41. By fabricating COVID-19 vaccination cards, the accused did not simply alter a document but he undermined the very foundation of public trust in official certification.

42. The evidence demonstrates that the accused engaged in a methodical operation: he was in possession of official-style stamps, blank vaccination cards, identity documents of third parties, clearly showing preparation and delivery of forged documents. Most damningly, he repeatedly admitted to having fabricated those cards.

43. As regards prejudice, the Court finds that the conduct of the accused was of a serious nature. By allowing non-vaccinated individuals to falsely present themselves as vaccinated, the accused exposed not only specific individuals but society at large to potential harm. Such acts jeopardise public health, facilitate the spread of disease, and erode confidence in State institutions. Where such documents are relied upon for international travel, the consequences of such forgery extend beyond the borders of Mauritius.

44. I reject entirely the version given in Court by the accused. It is inconsistent, illogical, and clearly designed to escape the inevitable consequences of his own admissions.

45. I therefore find that the alteration of truth has been proved, the document is a public writing, the accused acted with fraudulent intent, and the act was clearly of a nature to cause serious social prejudice.

Page 9 of 9

46. I, accordingly have no hesitation in finding the accused guilty as charged under Sections 108(a) and 121 of the Criminal Code.

ARSHAAD TOORBUTH District Magistrate 10/04/2026