Prices and Incomes Board v Narayan [2005] FJHC 206; HAM0039J.2005S (29 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No: HAM0039 of 2005S

Between:

PRICES AND INCOMES BOARD
Applicant

And:

VIJAY NARAYAN
f/n Ram Dass
Respondent

Hearing: 20th July 2005
Judgment: 29th July 2005

Counsel: Mr. S. Banuve for Prices & Incomes Board
Respondent in Person

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against acquittal by the Prices and Incomes Board. The appeal petition raises important issues of law, in relation to the consensual increases of rental on premises controlled by the Prices and Incomes Board.

Counsel for the Applicant has made submissions, as has the Respondent in person. Unfortunately this appeal is invalid. Section 308(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that:

“Save as hereinafter provided, any person who is dissatisfied with any judgment, sentence or order of a magistrates’ court in any criminal cause or matter to which he is a party may appeal to the [High] Court against such judgment, sentence or order:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order of acquittal except by, or with the sanction in writing of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

No sanction has been obtained in this case. I considered the validity of an appeal against such sanction in Land Transport Authority v. David Satya Anand Chetty HAA0018 of 2004B. That was an appeal by the Land Transport Authority against an acquittal of a taxi driver on an offence of the improper operation of his taxi from a taxi stand. In that case, the DPP’s sanction had been obtained, but it was dated the 22nd of February 2005. The appeal petition had been filed on the 21st of October 2003. I held that the appeal was incompetent.

In Suva City Council v. Ramesh Kumar Cr. App. HAA0040 of 1996 Scott J held that where no sanction had been obtained, the appeal against acquittal must fail. In Price v. Humphries [1958] 2 All ER 725 the Queen’s Bench Division, approving King v. Waller [1909] UKLawRpKQB 204; [1910] KB 364, held that where the DPP’s consent is required for the filing of an indictment, such consent must be filed at the time of the filing of the indictment.

No appeal against acquittal is permitted without the Director’s sanction. In order to grant the court jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the sanction must exist at the time of the filing of the petition of appeal. Indeed the clerk in the Magistrates’ Court should refuse to accept such petition without the Director’s written sanction.

This appeal is therefore incompetent and invalid, because it was filed without the DPP’s sanction. It is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
29th July 2005