Supreme Court of Mauritius, 7 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 4 – Ganeshdev Hurbungs

Ganeshdev Hurbungs

2026 PMP 4

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 9342/25 In the matter of:- Police v Ganeshdev Hurbungs JUGMENT

A. Introduction

1. The Accused stands charged with the following offences:

1.1. Using an uninsured motor vehicle in breach of Sections 55(1) (2) and 52 Second Schedule of RTA; 1.2. Taking motor vehicle without owner’s consent in breach of Sections 151(3) and 52 of RTA; and 1.3. Refusing to comply with traffic direction given by a police officer, to wit: Failing to stop, in breach of Sections 123 AD (1)(a) (4) and 163 of RTA.

2. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and was unrepresented throughout the trial.

3. The case for the prosecution was conducted by police prosecutor.

B. The case for the prosecution

4. The NTA certificate of motor vehicle 2739G was produced and marked as DOC A.

5. Witness no.1 testified that on 01.03.21 at 13:35hrs, at Long Mountain, he interviewed the Accused after having informed him of the facts and circumstances, his constitutional rights and cautioned. The Accused refused to give a statement and stated: “mo pas d’accord avec sa bane contravention la, mo pas cone nanien, mo pou dire tous dans la cour”.

6. Witness no.2 testified that on 06.05.20, at 14hrs, he was on duty on Royal Road, Notre Dame when he saw motor vehicle registration number 2739G, colour black and red, coming from Notre Dame coming in his direction. He signalled the rider to stop and at this point he was about 50 metres away from him. The motor vehicle approached him and slowed down. He noticed that it was Ganeshdev Hurbungs on the motorcycle and he was about one metre away from him. He is very known to the police of Long Mountain. When the latter reached his level, he accelerated and went into the direction of Bois Pignolet. The said Ganeshdev Hurbungs are wearing a black helmet and it was open to reveal his face. The witness took the contravention for failing to stop. He positively identified the Accused as being Ganeshdev Hurbungs.

7. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the weather was sunny and there was only one officer with him. He could not remember the name of the officer. When it was put to him that he could remember that it was him after so long but could not remember who was with him on that date, the witness replied that he did not mention anyone being with him when he put up his statement. He could not remember the colour of the clothes that the Accused was wearing. When it was put to him that it was the Accused’s father who was the rider, but because he was under the influence of alcohol, the police pinned the offence on Accused. The witness denied.

8. Witness no.3 testified that the motorcycle 2739G make Honda is his and is registered in his name. Upon being told that the Accused got a contravention on 06.05.20, the witness replied not being aware of it. He could not remember that the police interviewed him on 25.02.21 at 10hrs at Long Mountain. He stated that he was interviewed several times by the police and each time he said that he would everything in court. He could not remember whether he was interviewed in the present case.

C. The case for the defence

9. When explained of his rights, the Accused stated from the dock that he was not the rider. He maintained that the rider was his father.

D. Analysis

10. I have carefully assessed the evidence on record. 11. First and foremost, I need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the rider of motor cycle 2739G was indeed the Accused on the material date. The evidence of witness no.1 was to the effect that he noticed that it was the Accused on the motorcycle. The Accused was wearing a helmet, which was open, thus revealing his face. He was one metre away from the Accused when the latter approached his level. He stated that the Accused is well known to the police. The Accused has disputed being the rider.

12. No evidence was elicited from the witness to assist the court in assessing the quality of the witness’ evidence. It is not enough for the witness to simply say that he was about one metre away and he could recognise the Accused under the open helmet as the latter is well known to the police. Firstly, I am in the dark as to how much of the rider’s face was actually being revealed under the helmet. Importantly, how long has this witness known the Accused? How often has he seen the Accused before? In what circumstances had he encountered the Accused before? When was the last time he had seen the Accused prior to making his observation in the present case? Was his visual recognition of it being the Accused based on a fleeting glance or a longer observation? Did he have a clear view of his face? Could his observations have been impeded in any way? How sure was the witness that the person he saw was indeed the Accused? So many significant questions left unanswered because the police prosecutor failed to ask them. Given such shortcomings, I cannot safely rely of the evidence of witness no.2.

13. At this stage, all the charges against the Accused cannot stand.

E. Conclusion

14. The prosecution having failed to prove the charges against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, the information against him is accordingly dismissed.

Mrs. M. D. Chung Kow Cheong District Magistrate

07.05.26