State v Qaranivalu [1998] FJHC 197; Haa0054.98 (28 August 1998)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
IN SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA 54 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

THE STATE
Appellant

AND:

SEINI QARANIVALU
Respondent

JUDGEMENT

On 29^th February 1998 at the Magistrate’s Court, the respondent pleaded guilty to the following five counts – on count 1 to larceny by servant contrary to section 274(b) (1) of the Penal Code; on count 2 to forgery contrary to section 335(2) (a) of the Penal Code; on count 3 to uttering forged documents contrary to section 343(1) of the Penal Code; on count 4 to obtaining money by false pretence contrary to section 309(a) of the Penal Code; and on count 5 to personation contrary to section 369 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate without entering a conviction discharged the respondent under section 44 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate did not specify any period when making the order for the discharge – it appears the order was for an absolute discharge without conviction.

The State has appealed on the grounds that the order as being manifestly inadequate and that it was wrong in principle to grant a discharge.

The respondent was employed by the Inland Revenue Department as a clerk and her duties included preparation of cheques. She stole the cheque belonging to one Mereoni Daveta, forged her signature and obtained the sum of $450.67. The respondent had personated the complainant and obtained the money from Agnes Tikovuilagi. The complainant received certain information and the matter was reported to the police. The respondent was arrested and charged. When the complainant later came to know the respondent was her relative, she wrote to the police to drop the charge against the respondent. The respondent had fully paid the money back to the complainant. The learned Magistrate at the time of making the order for the discharge stated that the respondent’s employer still wanted to retain her. The respondent is still working for the Inland Revenue Department and at the moment she is on maternity leave.

By virtue of section 44(1) of the Penal Code, a prerequisite to ordering an accused to be absolutely discharged is that, having regard to the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is inexpedient to inflict punishment – prerequisites according to the learned Magistrate were present when making the order.

The Appeal is dismissed.

S.N. Sadal
PUISNE JUDGE

SUVA
28^th AUGUST 1998