Supreme Court of Mauritius, 22 septembre 2023, 2023 PL3 128 – Police vs Hoozeer

Page 1 of 3

Police vs Hoozeer

2023 PL3 128

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (DIVISION III) In the matter of: CN6782/22

POLICE

VS

MUHAMMAD NAUSHAD HOOZEER The Accused JUDGMENT

1. The Accused stands charged, under count I, with the offence of “Driving a motor vehicle on a road without being the holder of a driving licence”, and under count II, with the offence of “Taking a motor vehicle and driving it without the owner’s consent”.

2. The Accused pleaded not guilty to both counts and was not legally represented during the proceedings.

Case for the prosecution 3. On 12 January 2012, witness No.2 was on patrol in police uniform at Eugene Laurent Street. He stopped motorcycle bearing registration No.4565U and asked for the motorcyclist’s driving licence. The motorcyclist remitted his driving licence to the witness and identified himself as Mr Muhammad Naushad Hoozeer. The witness noted that the Accused’s driving licence was a provisional one and no letter “L” was affixed on the motorcycle.

Page 2 of 3

4. On 21 November 2016, witness No.1 interviewed the Accused who stated verbally not being aware that he was not authorised to drive the motorcycle, that a friend had left the motorcycle with him for repairs, and that the said friend had not given him permission to use the motorcycle.

5. Witness No.4, the owner of the motorcycle testified to the effect that she had not authorised the Accused to drive her vehicle.

Case for the defence 6. The Accused testified under oath and related that he could not remember having been stopped by witness No.2 at the material time. He further stated that if he had committed the said offences, he begged for excuse.

Assessment 7. In light of the traffic branch memo produced by the prosecution, the Accused became the holder of a provisional licence for motorcycles and autocycles on 10 October 2012. Before that, he was the holder of a provisional licence for private cars since 05 June 1999. On 12 January 2012, the Accused was therefore not authorised to drive motorcycles. I am therefore satisfied, on the basis of the said memo, the content of which have not disputed by the Accused, that the latter was not authorised to drive a motorcycle at the material time. Having considered the testimony of witness No.2, which was not disputed by the Accused, I am also satisfied that the Accused was driving the motorcycle on a road at the material time.

8. As to the second count, in light of the testimony of witness No.4, which was not disputed by the Accused, I am satisfied that the former did not consent to the Accused using her vehicle.

9. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the prosecution has established both counts levelled against the Accused beyond reasonable doubts.

Findings 10. I accordingly find the Accused guilty as charged under count I and count II.

Page 3 of 3

M. V. MAYER District Magistrate 22 September 2023