Reddy v The State [2004] FJHC 363; HAA0090.2004L (29 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0090 OF 2004L

RAJNESH REDDY
s/o Ramaiya
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in person
Mr. M. Korovou for the respondent

Hearing & Ruling: 29 October 2004

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

The appellant, Rajnesh Reddy, appeared before the Nadi Magistrates Court on the 11^th March 2004 and pleaded guilty to 2 counts of forgery, following which, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months with respect to each count, the sentences to be served consecutively.

The appellant appeals the sentence.

The facts are as accepted by the appellant before the Learned Magistrate on the 23^rd February 2004, he prepared a Colonial Bank cheque amounting to $30.00 at the request of the co-accused and that between the 23^rd February 2004 and the 26^th February 2004 then forged a fake Colonial Bank Cheque No. 194544-05-044-2141030.

The appellant pleaded guilty before the magistrate on the first opportunity and was dealt with and imprisoned on the 18^th March 2004 and has remained in prison since that time.

The appellant has placed before this court a lengthy written, well reasoned submission in mitigation.

I take into account the matters that he has placed before me as to the effect of what he has done on his life, both his commercial life and his private life. Clearly, he is a talented commercial artist and it is clear to me that in committing this offence, he was being led by others.

State Counsel acknowledges that the imposition of consecutive sentences is inappropriate in this matter, both offences arise out of the one incident and there seems to be no justification for the imposition of consecutive sentences.

As I have said, the appellant has served almost 8 months of the sentence imposed on him. It seems to me appropriate that the balance of his sentence, which I deem to be 12 months, be served by way of a suspended sentence. I give to him the opportunity to remake his life and to move forward having learnt a very, very expensive lesson.

State Counsel refers me to the authority of State v Saten Chand Bali – HAC0002 of 2001L which clearly indicates that the range of penalty is from 12 months to 2 ½ years for offences of this nature.

In the circumstances therefore:

(a) I allow the appeal.

(b) I quash the sentence imposed by the Learned Magistrate and in lieu thereof, I impose a sentence of 12 months imprisonment from today and I suspend that sentence for a period of 2 years from today.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
29 October 2004

Endorsement:

In accordance with the provisions of section 29 and 30, I am obliged to advise you should re-offend in the next 2 years and you go to jail. If you behave yourself for the next 2 years and you don’t go to jail. It is a matter for you as to what happens to you in the future. You are free from now.