Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 22 – police v beelur

police v beelur

2026 MOK 22

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA

CN:3366/25

Police v Surendra BEELUR

Judgment

Accused is being prosecuted for illegal littering in breach of Regulation 3(b) of the Local Government (Dumping and Waste Carrier) Regulation 2021, GN 193/2021 .

He pleaded not guilty and was not represented.

Regulation 3(b) provides that “no person shall throw, drop or otherwise deposit or cause any littering in any street, road, drain, river or other public place other than a space or bin specially provided for that purpose.”

The case for the Prosecution lies essentially on the evidence of PC Jojob who deponed that on the 23.4.24 at 9.15 a.m, whilst he was on bike patrol in police uniform, he saw accused who was selling corn. The latter was peeling the corn and threw the husks on the ground. He approached the accused and informed him of the offence and he checked the latter’s ID . He identified the accused in the dock. He also added that there was no bin nor any place to throw trash.

In cross examination, he confirmed that the accused had placed the corn on a table and was peeling same. He denied that the accused was keeping the corn husks in his van and not throwing same on the ground.

Accused deponed under oath and stated that he was selling corn but was placing the husks in his vehicle and did not throw same on the ground.

In cross examination, he confirmed that he never got into trouble with witness 1, however in his opinion, witness 1 was not agreeable that he took money from him after he had bought corn from the accused.

I have considered the evidence adduced and I have not been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt with the case for the prosecution. I have the sworn version of the prosecution witness on the one hand and that of the accused on the other.

Both were not materially shaken in cross examination. I also took note of the version of the witness for the prosecution who stated that there was no bin nor any place to throw trash around , whilst the regulation specifically provides for same.

Hence, having taken both version into consideration, I find both equally plausible.

In the circumstances, I give the accused the benefit of the doubt and I accordingly dismiss the case against the accused.

G.Rampoortab Senior District Magistrate 13.05.26