Supreme Court of Mauritius, 17 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 91 – Police v Gungoo

1

Police v Gungoo

2026 RDR 91

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIÈRE DU REMPART (Criminal Jurisdiction) In the matter of: CN: 528/24 Police v Ravin GUNGOO

JUDGMENT Accused is charged with the offence of “depositing waste at a place other than a waste disposal site” in breach of Regulation 13(1)(a)(1)(A) of GN 18/03 of the Dumping and Waste Carriers Regulations. He pleaded not guilty and was not legally represented. Prosecution’s case was conducted by Police Prosecutor and proceedings were in creole. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION Prosecution moved to call witness No.1, PS Sauhoboo who produced the defence statement of Accused. Witness No.1 solemnly affirmed that Declarant (Witness No.3) deposited the waste on the road because he was doing renovation in his yard. Then as per Accused’s defence statement, he removed the waste from the road and placed it in front of the Declarant’s gate. Accused was explained the right to cross examine witness but he chose not to. Prosecution called Witness No.2, PS Deena who stated under oath that he went to the locus and drew a plan where the waste was deposited and it was indeed in front of Declarant’s house.

Witness No.2 was not cross examined by Accused and Prosecution called Witness No.3, the Declarant. Witness No.3 solemnly affirmed that stonemasons were working at his place and they kept the waste – “debris” on the road at the corner “dans coin” and on the next day, the waste was in front of his gate. He did not see Accused throwing the waste in front of his yard but he later on came to know. Accused briefly cross examined Witness No.3 by putting to him that he threw the waste on the road to which Witness No.3 stated that same were not on the road. Prosecution did no re-examine witness and closed its case. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE Accused was explained all his constitutional rights to give evidence on oath, from the dock as well as his right to remain silent. Accused was also informed of his right to call witnesses. Accused chose to give evidence under oath. He stated under oath that Declarant threw waste on the road which obstructed his vehicles. He has a car and a van but since Declarant threw waste on the road, he could not travel. Accused stated that he is not in good terms with the Declarant. Accused stated under oath that the soil on the road was causing obstruction for one week but whenever he went to the police station, nothing was done. Then Accused stated that he took a shovel and removed the waste from the road. Accused was cross examined and he denied that he deposited waste at a place other than a waste disposal site. ANALYSIS The Accused is charged with the offence of depositing waste at a place other than a waste disposal site” in breach of Regulation 13(1)(a)(1)(A) of GN 18/03 of the Dumping and Waste Carriers Regulations. The facts as disclosed during the proceedings are largely undisputed. Declarant candidly admitted in Court that he did renovation works at his place and deposited construction waste on the road albeit according to him in a matter that he deemed unobtrusive – “dans coin”. Court notes that the gist of this case is that Accused threw the waste belonging to Declarant in front of his gate thus obstructing the Declarant.

At the very outset, the genesis of this matter lies in the initial act of the Declarant himself as stated above. He admitted in examination in chief that he deposited waste on the road in a corner. When Court questioned Accused regarding the usage of the road, he explained that it is a road which is used frequently. Such conduct from the Declarant, irrespective of whether the waste was placed “dans coin” or otherwise, falls squarely within the prohibition contemplated by the law. Roads where public have access and, in this case, the Accused was frequently using same, are not designated waste disposal sites. Declarant’s act was in itself at the very start unlawful. It is striking that while the Accused is being charged with the offence of depositing waste other than a waste disposal site that is depositing waste belonging to the Declarant in front of Declarant’s gate, there was no action taken against the Declarant when he made the complaint in the first instance and admitted to having thrown the waste on the corner of the road. The irony here cannot be overlooked. Such a situation calls for careful judicial scrutiny where a party who has admittedly engaged in the very conduct proscribed by law now seeks the protection of that same law against another. Now, coming to the evidence regarding this case. Accused chose to give evidence under oath. He maintained that he could never do any environmental harm. In fact, he tried to seek justice by going to the police station but there, he was denied any assistance. I note that the waste in question was not generated from the Accused but rather it originated from the Declarant. Accused simply put the waste back to its owner and the waste was found in front of Accused’s yard and therefore not in a public place. I do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. I wish to put an observation before concluding. As per the facts revealed in the present case, the Declarant went to the police station and admitted that his workers threw the waste on the road at the corner, it was incumbent upon the police to act impartially and consistently. The selective enforcement of the law undermines public confidence in the administration of justice the moreso as Accused himself stated under oath that police officers do not listen to him when he goes to the police station. Failure of the police to take legal action against Declarant is regrettable.

CONCLUSION In light of all the above. Accused is found not guilty and case is dismissed against him.

Ms O.LUCHOO Temporary District Magistrate 17.04.2026