State v Bhika (Judgment) [2011] FJHC 165; HAC116.2007 (14 March 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No.: HAC 116 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

1. SULIASI SOROVAKATINI
2. DHANSUKH LAL BHIKA
   

Counsels: Ms. S. Puamau & Ms. J.Prasad for the State
Mr. M. Raza for 1st Accused
Mr. P. Maiden S. C, Mr. R. Newton and Mr. Parshotham for 2nd Accused

Date of Hearing: From 10th February 2011 to 14th March 2011
Date of Summing Up: 14th March 2011
Date of Judgment: 14th March 2011

JUDGMENT

1. All five Assessors have unanimously found the 1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini guilty to the 1st, 3rd and 7th Counts and found not guilty to the 5th Count.
All five assessors unanimously found the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha guilty to the 2nd, 4th and 8th Counts and found not guilty to the 6th Count.
I have reviewed the evidence called in the trial and I have directed myself in accordance with the summing up I gave the assessors today. I find that the verdict of the assessors was not perverse. It was open to them to reach such a conclusion on the evidence. I do accept their verdict.

2. I have reviewed all evidence called in the trial. There are 4 Counts against the 1st
Accused. The ingredients of the 1st and 3rd counts are briefly as follows:

a) the 1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini

b) employed in the civil service

c) corruptly received.

d) received benefit namely air tickets

e) on account of acts done

f) in the discharge of the duties of his office

3. The 1st and the 2nd ingredients, 1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini was employed in the Civil Service and held the position of Principal Accounts Officer were agreed, these two ingredients were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The 3rd ingredient was corruptly received, considering the way the payments were approved and paid as at P7 and it was given to Suncourt hardware who received the payment proves that the tickets were given corruptly to the 1st Accused.

5. The 4th ingredient on account of the acts done by the 1st Accused. It is evidence before the Court that the voucher was raised on 11/05/2001, all approvals were done on the same day, the cheque was written, signed and paid on the same day, almost 10 days after he gets these two tickets. In my view the State had proven this ingredient.

6. The next ingredient was in the discharge of the duties of his office. This ingredient was partly discussed earlier. The payment was done by the 1st Accused as the Principal Accounts Officer of MAFF. Considering all evidence I am of the view that this ingredient was also proved beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Considering all evidence before the court the Prosecution had proved all essential ingredients of the 1st and 3rd Counts, therefore I find the 1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini guilty to the 1st and 3rd Counts in the information.

8. Now I considered the 5th Count. The ingredients were already discussed. Except the 1st Accused had received $10,000 travellers cheques. I find this element was not proved beyond reasonable doubt therefore I acquit the 1st Accused from this count.

9. Considering the ingredient of the 7th Count. It is almost similar to the other Counts except the benefit received. In this Count it is alleged that the 1st Accused had a credit account at Suncourt hardware under Account no. HS483 and obtained properties and cash. Considering all available evidence before the Court that there are evidence 1st Accused had a credit account and receiving building materials to renovate his house. Further there are cash advance obtained from the account to pay the carpenters who worked at his home. I find the Prosecution had proved this ingredient beyond reasonable doubt.

10. Considering all available evidence before the Court, the Court finds that the 7th Count was proved beyond reasonable doubt therefore I find the 1st Accused guilty to the 7th Count as mentioned in the information.

12. There are four counts preferred against the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha

13. Now I consider the 2nd & 4th Count mentioned in the information. The ingredients are as follows:

a) Accused

b) corruptly gave a benefit namely an air ticket to Suva-Nadi-Suva and Nadi- Sydney - Gold coast - Melbourne-Nadi.

c) to person employed in public service

d) on account of acts done

e) in the discharge of his duties

f) for the benefit of the Accused.

14. The 1st ingredient is the accused is Dhansukh Lal Bhikha. There is no dispute in that element.

15. The 2nd ingredient is corruptly gave the word 'Corruptly' was already discussed
previously are applicable hereto. The question is whether the 2nd Accused gave the two sets of tickets to 1st Accused. It is proven that 1st Accused travelled with those tickets and it was given to him by the General Manager of Suncourt, Manoj Kumar Bhikha. The next question is, were those tickets given from the personnel account of Manoj Kumar Bhikha? The answer is no, then who paid the ticket? it was paid by Suncourt. If it is paid by the company can the 2nd Accused be held responsible? The 2nd Accused was the Managing Director who had overall control over the business. It was revealed in Court that from opening the shop up to controlling all staffs, especially the General Manager Manoj Kumar Bhikha and the Finance Controller. These two were directly responsible to the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha. Apart from this the 2nd Accused had signed the cheques for the payment of the ticket fares. Considering all evidence, including the above I find this ingredient was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

16. The next ingredient was the benefit was given to a person employed in Public Service. This is an accepted fact that Suliasi Sorovakatini was a public servant and he was the Principal Accounts Officer attached to the MAFF at the relevant time. This ingredient also proved beyond reasonable doubt.

17. The next two ingredients I consider together. Those are on account of acts done and with discharge of his duties. Considering available evidence, it reveals that the 1st Accused was given these benefits for the act he has done as the Principal Accounts Officer. Especially when we analyse the procedure followed in the purchasing and payment done in P7 for the value of $225,092.04. Considering all available evidence I am convinced that these two ingredients were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

18. The last ingredient is, for the benefit of the Accused. Considering the evidence the cheque of $225,092.04 was paid to Suncourt hardware. The 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha was the Managing Director and he was actively involved in the business of the company. Further he was involved in the payment of the air ticket fare also. Considering all I am convinced that this ingredient also been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

19. Since all necessary ingredients of the 2nd & 4th were proved beyond reasonable doubt I find the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha guilty to the 2nd and 4th Count in the information.

20. Now I consider the 6th Count. All ingredients except the benefit of $10,000 are similar to the 2nd & 4th Count therefore those ingredients were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

21. Now I consider whether the 2nd Accused had paid $10,000 to the 1st Accused. It is evidence before the Court that the cheque were signed by the 2nd Accused and Manoj Kumar Bhikha, but there is no evidence that it was given to 1st Accused. There is more than one conclusion can be reached in this, Manoj Kumar Bhikha would have taken the money or it would have been spent on 1st Accused's expense in travelling. Since there is a doubt I give the benefit of this doubt to the 2nd Accused and acquit him on the 6th Count.

22. Now I consider the 8th Count, all ingredients except the nature of the benefit are similar to Count No. 2 & 4. Those observations are applicable to the Count also.

23. Considering the nature of the benefit stated in the 8th Count, these documents reveal that the 2nd Accused had approved many payments to 1st Accused therefore one can come to a conclusion that the 2nd Accused knew about the credit account of 1st Accused. Further a person who is in the position of Managing Director of the company and involved in the day to day business of the company should have known a credit facility given to a Government servant to an amount of $51,921.12 without any repayment. Considering all factors I am convinced that the State had proved all the ingredient of this Count therefore I find the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha guilty to the 8th Count in the information.

24. The verdict is as follows:

1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini is found guilty and convicted for the 1st Count as per the information.

2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha is found guilty and convicted for the 2nd Count as per the information.

1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini is found guilty and convicted for the 3rd Count as per the information

2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha is found guilty and convicted for the 4th Count as per the information.

1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini is found not guilty and acquitted for the 5th Count as per the information.

2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha is found not guilty and acquitted for the 6th Count as per the information.

1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini is found guilty and convicted for the 7th Count as per the information.

2nd Accused Dhankukh Lal Bhikha is found guilty and convicted for the 8th Count as per the information.

So Ordered.

S Thurairaja
Puisne Judge

At Suva
Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Mehboob Raza & Associates for 1st Accused
Parshotam & Co. for 2nd Accused