State v Chand; State v Prasad [2001] FJHC 181; HAJ01.2001 & HAJ02.2001 (24 April 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 01 & 02 OF 2001

IN THE MATTER
OF SECTION 323 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

AND

IN THE MATTER
OF LABASA TRAFFIC CASE NO. 3364 OF 2000 AND 208 OF 2001

Case No. 3364/00

Between:

THE STATE

And

MAHENDRA CHAND
s/o Brij Narayan

__________________

Case No. 208/01

Between:

THE STATE

And

RITESH VINAY PRASAD s/o Kali Prasad

ORDER ON REVISION

The learned Resident Magistrate Eparama Rokoika Esq., of the Magistrate’s Court at Labasa has requested that I revise his order of 3 April 2001 in the above actions based on the following facts (as he stated them):

‘The two files were included in a batch where proceedings were initiated by Summons when it should have been Traffic Infringement Notice as provided by s.92 LTA Act. The Court, when acquitting the accused persons named in the batch inadvertently acquitted the accused persons in the two files. This was a mistake as the two were charged under s.102 of the Act. S.83 of the Act allows proceedings to be initiated by summons if a person is charged under Section 102.’

The order which he made on each file reads:

‘Proceedings initiated by Summons which is not permissible under section 92 of the Act (A) is acquittal’.

I find that for the reasons given by the learned Magistrate, the order of acquittal is not a valid order. This indeed was an error inadvertently made in the circumstances stated by His Worship.

Therefore the order of acquittal in each case was an unlawful and an invalid order. Consequently I accede to the learned Magistrate’s request for revision and set it aside. Both the cases are remitted to the Magistrate’s Court, Labasa for plea to be taken.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Labasa
24 April 2001