Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Court of Appeal of Fiji |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIJI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. AAU 0027 of 2011
High Court Criminal Action No. HAC 116 of 2007
BETWEEN:
DHANSUKH LAL BHIKHA
Appellant
AND:
THE STATE
Respondent
Coram : Chandra RJA
Counsel : Ms. S. Vaniqi for the Appellant
Ms. M. Fong for the Respondent
Date of Hearing : 4 April 2013
Date of Ruling : 4 July 2013
RULING
(a) Suncourt Cheque for Travel - Grounds 5,6 and 17;
(b) Government Cheque for Goods Supplied - Grounds 8,9,18 and 19;
(c) Role of the Appellant -Grounds 14 – 18, 20;
(d) Sentence – Ground 21.
7. Since it was stated that in order to ventilate grounds 2,4,11 and 12 the court record or transcripts of the trial were required, those grounds will not be considered at this stage.
8. As regards Grounds 5,6 and 17 it was the submission that the learned trial Judge had misdirected himself on the law and facts regarding the charges in respect of the travel tickets which had been given to the 1st accused as a benefit. The ground adduced is that the learned trial Judge had not adequately directed the Assessors that the Appellant had no dealings with the 1st accused, and that it was Manoj Bhikha who had dealings with the 1st accused. That the evidence before Court was to the effect that the Appellant had no dealing with the 1st accused. Further that the Appellant had been charged because he had signed the cheques that had been used to purchase the travel tickets which were given to the 1st accused. That there was evidence that the Appellant used to sign blank cheques.
9. The position of the Appellant as urged in the submissions is that in view of the fact that blank cheques had been signed he had not entertained the required mens rea that was required to establish the charges against him. That the element of "corruption" was not satisfied in such circumstances as it was contended that the person who gives corruptly must be aware that the transaction is a corrupt one.
10. The Appellant's further contention is that the purpose for which the cheques were going to be used was unknown to the Appellant and that when the impugned cheques had been utilized he had not been in the country.
11. These submissions are highly arguable and it would be best left to the Full Court to be considered.
12. Grounds 8,9,18 and 19 are in respect of the Government Cheque for $225,092.04 which was given to Suncourt (Wholesalers) Ltd. purportedly for the supply of goods to the Government for which the 1st accused received the reward of airline tickets and work done on his home.
13. Regarding these grounds too, the main argument is that the learned trial Judge had misdirected in failing to direct the Assessors in his summing up adequately. It was submitted that it was in the normal course of business a payment for goods supplied which had the approval of Ministry of Finance, and therefore the Appellant could not be guilty of corruption.
14. The Appellant's further submission was that the main management and daily decisions of the company had been left to the General Manager Manoj Bhika and therefore no liability could be attached to the Appellant.
15. These are matters which are arguable and I would leave these matters too to the Full Court for argument with the availability of the case record.
16. Grounds 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 relate to the role of Appellant in respect of the conduct of the business of the Company which overlap the grounds and submissions referred to above. Here again the main argument is that the learned trial Judge had not adequately directed the Assessors regarding the role of the Appellant in the business affairs of the Company.
17. It was further contended that the liability should be on the Company as a legal entity and not on the Appellant.
18. These are matters which are arguable and could be best dealt with by the Full Court.
19. Ground 21 is in relation to sentence where it was contended that the positions held by the Appellant in relation to his contributions to the community were treated as aggravated factors and not as mitigating factors and thereby the learned trial Judge had erred in law. Different views have been expressed in relation to official corruption and would be a matter which can be argued.
20. This is an arguable matter and can be urged before the Full Court.
21. The matters urged by the Appellant in this leave to appeal application are overlapping and even the submissions urged in support of them are overlapping. The threshold that has to be met by the Appellant is to satisfy the requirements of Section 21(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act (Cap.12). Since the grounds of appeal formulated by the Appellant raise arguable grounds of appeal, leave would be granted to argue those matters before the Full Court.
Order of Court
Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence allowed.
Suresh Chandra
Resident Justice of Appeal
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJCA/2013/66.html