State v Bhika [2011] FJHC 166; HAC116.207 (14 March 2011)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Fiji

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

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

9. In assessing the evidence, you are at liberty to accept the whole of witnesses
Evidence or accept part of it and reject the other part or reject the whole. In deciding on the credibility of any witness, you should take into account not only what you heard but what you saw. You must take into account the manner in which the witness gave evidence. Was he or she evasive? How did he or she stand up to cross-examination? You are to ask yourselves, was the witness honest and reliable.

10. The Director of Public Prosecutions had preferred the following charges against the
1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini and 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha.

SULIASI SOROVAKATINI, on or about 21st May, 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, being employed in the public service, and being charged by virtue thereof with the performance of certain duties as prescribed pursuant to section 6 of the Public Service Act of 1999, corruptly received a benefit, namely air travel from Suva to Nadi and return valued at $190.00, on account of acts done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office.

DHANSUKH LAL BHIKHA and Others on or about 21st May, 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, corruptly gave a benefit, namely air travel from Suva to Nadi and return, valued at $190.00 to a person employed in the public service, namely SULIASI SOROVAKATINI, on account of acts done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office.

SULIASI SOROVAKATINI, on or about 21st May, 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, being employed in the public service, and being charged by virtue thereof with the performance of certain duties as prescribed pursuant to section 6 of the Public Service Act of 1999, corruptly received a benefit namely air travel from Nadi to Melbourne and return valued at $1,638.00, on account of acts done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office.

DHANSUKH LAL BHIKHA and others on or about 21st May, 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, corruptly gave a benefit, namely air travel from Nadi to Melbourne and return, valued at $1,638.00, to a person employed in the public service, namely SULIASI SOROVAKATINI, on account of acts done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office.

SULIASI SOROVAKATINI, on or about 21st May, 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, being employed in the public service, and being charged by virtue thereof with the performance of certain duties as prescribed pursuant to section 6 of the Public Service Act of 1999, corruptly received a benefit derived from travellers cheques worth $10,000.00, on account of acts done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office.

DHANSUKH LAL BHIKHA and others on or about 21st May, 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, corruptly gave a benefit in the form of a travellers cheques worth $10,000.00 to a person employed in the public service, namely SULIASI SOROVAKATINI, on account of acts done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office.

SULIASI SOROVAKATINI, between 16th May 2001 and 10th August 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, being employed in the public service, and being charged by virtue thereof with the performance of certain duties as prescribed pursuant to section 6 of the Public Service Act of 1999, corruptly received a benefit, namely cash, properties and payments to his carpenter from Credit Account HS483 with Suncourt (Wholesalers) Ltd, on account of acts done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office.

DHANSUKH LAL BHIKHA and others between 16th May 2001 and 10th August 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, corruptly gave a benefit, namely cash, properties and payment to a carpenter from Credit Account HS483 at Suncourt (Wholesalers) Ltd, to a person employed in the public service, namely SULIASI SOROVAKATINI, on account of acts done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office."

(a) being employed in the public service, and being charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of such employment, corruptly asks for, solicits, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything already done or omitted to be done or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by him in the discharge of the duties of his office; or

(b) corruptly gives, confers or procures, or promises or offers to give or confer, or to procure, or attempt to procure, to, upon, or for any person employed in the public service, or to, upon, or for any other person, any property or benefit of any kind on account of any such act or omission on the part of the person so employed,

12. Both Accused persons were charged under Section 106 of the Penal Code for
Official Corruption.

14. At the relevant time the 1st Accused was in civil service and he held a position of
Principal Accounts Officer at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (MAFF). This fact is agreed between the State and the 1st Accused and that is evidence before the Court.

15. The 3rd element is 'Corruptly received'. I wish to divide this into two, one is
'corruptly' and the other one is 'received'. Here it is agreed by the 1st Accused that he had received tickets to Suva – Nadi – Suva which was set out in 1st Count and Nadi-Sydney-Gold Coast-Melbourne-Nadi stated in 3rd Count. But he denies that he received the said tickets corruptly. In the 5th Count the 1st Accused denies receiving of $10.000.00.

16. The word corruptly does not mean dishonestly. It means purposefully doing an act
which the law forbids as tending to corrupt. In other words the person who gives corruptly must be aware that the transaction is a corrupt one.

17. Considering the 1st and 3rd Counts the 1st Accused accepts the tickets were given to him by Manoj Kumar Bhikha who was the General Manager of Suncourt (wholesalers) Ltd. So one part of the ingredient is proved the other part is whether it was received corruptly.

18. The State Counsel submits to Court that it was given to him because he was the Principal Accounts Officer of MAFF and he assisted or favoured the Suncourt hardware which was a subsidiary of Suncourt (Wholesalers) Ltd.

19. The 1st Accused submits it was given to him by Manoj Kumar Bhikha on friendship. It was nothing to do with his position.

20. Receiving benefit namely the air tickets are not in dispute. The 1st Accused admits that he received the Suva-Nadi –Suva ticket and Nadi-Sydney-Gold Coast-Melbourne-Nadi tickets from Manoj Kumar Bhikha.

21. The 1st Accused says that he didn't receive $10,000 worth of traveller's cheque but he received $500.00 at Australia. Further he says that the travelling in Australia, food & lodging and Gold Coast expenditures were born by Manoj Kumar Bhikha. State Counsel submits that the Suncourt Wholesalers Ltd had raised necessary documents and purchased travellers cheques from Bank of Baroda –Ref. P17 & P23A.

24. The 3rd ingredient, Corruptly received can be divided into two. One part is
'Corruptly' and the other part is 'Received'. The 1st Accused admits that he received certain benefit from the Suncourt hardware. Further this position was supported by prosecution witness Robert Mohammed Hayat Khan. So one part namely receiving is proved. Now the question is whether it was received corruptly. Prosecution submits because of approving and paying of $225,092.04 as mentioned at P7 earned the benefit to the 1st Accused. The 1st Accused says that it is just a small credit facility obtained from his friend Manoj Kumar Bhikha who was the General Manager of Suncourt Hardware.

25. The next two ingredients namely on account of act done by him with discharge of
the duties of his office. It is an agreed fact that the 1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini was the Principal Accounts Officer of MAFF at the relevant time. It is agreed that he purchased and paid farming equipment for the value of $225,092.04. Now it is for you to consider whether it was an ordinary transaction. In the course of normal business transaction between MAFF and Suncourt or a different transaction.

26. I invite you to consider P7 which were agreed set of documents. P7(1) is a cheque drawn from MAFF's account to Suncourt Hardware. The cheque no. is 006669, dated 11.05.2001 for the amount of $225,092.04.

27. This cheque was drawn for the payment of about 26 vouchers. On a cursory perusal you may find the purchasing was done from 27th March 2001 to 30th April 2001.

28. Witnesses who came to Court explained how the purchases was done to MAFF. Especially Mr. Ashok Kumar who worked as Secretary of Major Tender Board and Acting Senior Supplies Officer of Government Supplies Department and Ms. Sereana Bainimarama who was the Director of Admin and Finance. As per PSC circular number 3 dated 31/12/1992 this was in force in 2000 and 2001. Purchases can be done within certain limits. Mr. Ashok Kumar categorically said Government officials are not allowed to purchase things without quotations from competitive suppliers of goods.

29. As per Financial Circular 03/1992 the authorized purchasing limit for the Accounting Officer-in-charge and Heads of division was $2000. The 1st Accused being Principal Accounts Officer his limit also the same. Prosecution witness Umesh Chand, Ashok Kumar, Sereana Bainimarama and Iliesa Lutu confirmed that the Financial Circular was in force and limit was $2000 for the Principal Accounts Officer. The 1st Accused also admits that his limit was $2000 but it was not there in 2000-2001 during the Interim Government period.

30. The Manager of special audit Umesh Chand finds irregularity in handling of purchase during this period including the purchase and payments in P7. But the 1st Accused says the decision made by the Government of the day and the demand from the public made them to work differently.

31. Now we consider P7. As we discussed earlier total amount for 26 batches were $225,092.04. It will be useful to see the details of those invoices.

Serial No.	No. of Invoices	Invoice No.	Date	Amount	Remarks
1	7	24155	25/4/01	1,077	Date altered
		24156	25/4/01	1,452	Ditto
		24157	26/4/01	295	Ditto
		24158	26/4/01	1,590
		24154	27/4/01	1,526	Date altered
		24153	25/4/01	1,579
		24152	25/4/01	2,368
2	7	24159	29/04/01	1,000	Date altered
		24160	27/04/01	1,590	Ditto
		24161	27/04/01	1,590	Ditto
		24162	26/04/01	1,590
		24163	27/04/01	1320	Date altered
		24164	26/04/01	1,320
		24165	26/04/01	1,320
3	7	23566	19/04/01	1,089.50
		23567	19/04/01	1,182
		23568	19/04/01	1,182
		23569	20/04/01	914	Date altered
		23570	20/04/01	297
		23571	20/04/01	1,734.95
		23572	20/04/01	702.50	Date altered
4	5	23573	19/04/01	830	Ditto
		23574	20/04/01	2,860
		23577	20/04/01	1,120
		?	?	?	Invoices missing
		?	?	?	Do
5	11	23555	17/04/01	2,563.50
		23556	18/04/01	320
		23557	18/04/01	625
		23558	18/04/01	295
		23559	10/04/01	854
		23575	20/04/01	972.50
		23576	20/04/01	887.50
		23560	18/04/01	625
		23561	18/04/01	379.50
		23562	18/04/01	1,465
		23563	18/04/01	1,360
		23564	18/04/01	452
		23565	18/04/01	1,000
6	8	23584	23/04/01	1,357
		23585	23/04/01	1,106
		23586	23/04/01	1,006
		23588	23/04/01	1,115
		23589	23/04/01	1,346
		23590	23/04/01	1,209.30
		23591	23/04/01	1,941.50
		23592	23/04/01	302.50
7	9	23594	23/04/01	1,000
		23595	23/04/01	872.50
		23596	23/04/01	965
		23597	23/04/01	1,689.50
		23600	24/04/01	840
		24001	24/03/01	1,592
		24002	24/04/01	1,104
		24003	24/04/01	657.50
		24005	24/04/01	295
8	3	23598	23/04/01	6,373.70
		24004	24/04/01	1,416
		24006	24/04/01	1,452
9	7	23578	23/04/01	1,872
		23579	23/04/01	1,184
		23580	23/04/01	1,729.35
		23581	23/04/01	1,360
		23582	23/04/01	1,879.50
		23583	23/04/01	1,065
		23593	23/04/01	825
10	3	24017	24/04/01	1,612.50
		24018	24/04/01	1,360
		24019	24/04/01	2,685
11	3	24015	24/04/01	972
		24012	24/04/01	2,322.50
		24013	24/04/01	2,278.50
12	8	24007	24/04/01	946
		24008	24/04/01	273
		24009	24/04/01	520
		24010	24/04/01	895
		24011	24/04/01	5,570
		24014	24/04/01	920
		24020	24/04/01	321
		24016	24/04/01	245
13	6	24132	28/04/01	1,395.50	Date altered
		24133	28/04/01	3,441.50
		24134	28/04/01	980	Date altered
		24135	28/04/01	295
		24136	30/04/01	1,956
		24138	30/04/01	1,297	Date altered
14	9	22896	10/04/01	295
		22897	10/04/01	1,555.50
		22898	10/04/01	945
		22899	10/04/01	945
		22900	10/04/01	325
		23251	10/04/01	960.50
		23252	10/04/01	1,774
		23253	10/04/01	1481.50
		23254	10/04/01	1,530.50
15	3	24139	30/04/01	6,451.50
		24140	30/04/01	2,271	Date altered
		24141	30/04/01	1,244
16	10	23262	10/04/01	1,215
		23263	10/04/01	700
		23264	10/04/01	525
		23265	10/04/01	645
		23266	11/04/01	1,400
		23268	11/04/01	1,172
		23269	11/04/01	700
		23271	11/04/01	965
		23272	11/04/01	965
		23273	11/04/01	1,592.50
17	6	22239	30/03/01	4,392.50
		22240	31/03/01	1,278.50	Date altered
		22241	27/03/01	280
		22242	02/04/01	1,232.50
		22243	02/04/01	1,734.50	Date altered
		22244	03/04/01	2,137.25	Ditto
18	7	22245	03/04/01	1,394
		22246	03/04/01	1,032
		22247	03/04/01	1,280	Date altered
		22248	03/04/01	1,455
		22249	03/04/01	1,823
		22250	03/04/01	1,217
		22853	03/04/01	1,452	Date altered
19	7	22852	03/04/01	535.50
		22851	03/04/01	1,819
		22854	03/04/01	2,543	Date altered
		22855	04/04/01	1,419
		22856	03/04/01	1,038	Date altered
		22857	04/04/01	1,335
		22858	04/04/01	1,045
20	7	22859	04/04/01	1,612.50
		22860	04/04/01	1,300
		22861	04/04/01	1,452
		22862	04/08/01	1,634
		22863	04/04/01	320
		22864	04/04/01	1,747
		22866	04/04/01	1,392.50
21	8	22865	04/04/01	1,995
		22867	04/04/01	715.50
		22868	04/04/01	590	Date altered
		22869	05/04/01	752
		22870	05/04/01	1,147
		22871	05/04/01	850
		22872	05/04/01	2,225
		22877	06/04/01	1,412
22	5	22873	06/04/01	1,924.50
		22874	06/04/01	2,719
		22875	06/04/01	3,300
		22876	06/04/01	844
		22879	06/04/01	1,015
23	6	22878	06/04/01	1,398.50
		22880	06/04/01	1,364
		22881	06/04/01	1,677
		22882	06/04/01	1,078.50
		22883	09/04/01	2,093.99
		22884	09/04/01	1,067
24	7	23255	10/04/01	1,749
		23256	10/04/01	515
		23261	10/04/01	295
		23257	10/04/01	1,090
		23258	10/04/01	1,502
		23260	10/04/01	3,185
		22891	10/04/01	1,250
25	3	23297	12/04/01	1,897
		23298	12/04/01	1,102
		23299	12/04/01	914
26	?	?	?	?	Invoices missing

32. The State Counsel submits that in these purchasing there are no proper procedures
followed but the 1st Accused says it may be because during the Government of the day had approved this type of purchasing.

33. In some of the purchases we find there are request letter from a person or a society
and it was approved by one of the Management official in the MAFF and purchasing was done. In certain purchases there are no requests but a tax invoice filled by the 1st Accused and Okayed for supply by himself. In certain instances members of the cabinet had fully recommended and supported.

34. Considering all views, do you think there is a dispute here, the authority including
Members of the cabinet and the management authorities such as Permanent Secretary had said "recommended or approved". Does it mean to go ahead for direct purchase without following the financial rules and regulations which were in force, it is up to you to decide.

35. In certain occasions such as P7 Bar code number MAFF 1485/14396 which was
written in a small piece of tax invoice slip no. 0035 dated 20/04/2001. The name says "INIA" no address or any other details given in that invoice the 1st Accused had written and approved for 6 x pig fence, 6 x coils barbed wire and 5kg urea(?). This was invoiced on 23/04/2001 under invoice no. for 23579. Can the Government supply farming materials for the value of $1184.00 without proper details? It is a matter for you to decide. You should be mindful the 1st Accused said that there was a request but it was not attached. That is a factual matter for you to decide.

36. Now we consider the approved memo from the Ministry of Finance. State Counsel
submits there was no memo found in the P7 transaction. Defence Counsels submits 2A5 and states that any payment above $20,000 a day was approved by the Ministry of Finance. Therefore P7 also an approved payment and there is no irregularity in this. Documents submitted to Court (2A5) have memo and relevant payment vouchers. If you peruse the relevant vouchers for example station voucher no. 2751/00 dated 20/10/2000. It gives the following description such as payee – Suncourt Hardware, Address to collect, details description of service or article "payment for the purchase of materials for affirmative action as per LPO 781836, quotations & Proforma invoice attached".

130220008108B amount $9890.25. It was certified correct by one officer and certified correct by the 1st Accused.

37. Now consider P7 (11) the payment voucher was raised by Naomi Cagiloaloa Nailutua on the instruction of 1st Accused gives following description.

Name: Suncourt Hardware, Address to be delivered, Station, voucher no. 1560/01. Date: 11.05.2001, detailed description of service or article "Being payment to the above company as per LPO # attached and various invoices amount $225,092.04. Certified correct endorsement by the same clerk and certification by the 1st Accused.

You may recall the clerk who prepared the voucher told the Court that there were no LPO's and she had not seen any of LPO's. But the 1st Accused said that there were LPO. Can this happen? You have to decide.

38. State Counsel submits that all these transactions raises suspicious. Voucher raised
on 11/05/2001 and the cheque written on 11/05/2001 and paid on the same day. But if you see the purchasing of those were done from 27th March 2001 to 30th April 2001.

39. 1st Accused had opened his credit account with Suncourt on 16/05/2001. It is an agreed fact.

40. LPO's was issued by the Suncourt Hardware to Lodhias Travels was on
21/05/2001. The tickets were purchased on the same date. Endorsement says payment by Suncourt Hardware.

42. 1st Accused flew Nadi to Sydney on 23/05/2001 at 7.25am. The ticketing agent was Lodhias Travel and paid invoice by Suncourt Hardware. The ticket combines the following itinerary. Nadi – Sydney – Gold Coast – Sydney – Melbourne – Nadi returned on 30/05/2001.

43. The credit account with Suncourt was seized operation on 10/08/2001. You may recall that Mr. I.Lutu said that special audit from the Ministry of Finance commenced on 19/07/2001 and took over the power of the MAFF finance activities to the Ministry of Finance. Are these a mere co-incidents or any relevance to each other you may come to your own conclusion.

44. Now we consider the charges against the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha. As we discussed earlier there are 4 charges preferred against him. All are under section 106(b) of the Penal Code.

45. If you consider the ingredients of the 2nd and 4th Counts, this is more or less similar to the 1st Count we discussed earlier.

b) corruptly gave a benefit namely an air ticket to Suva-Nadi-Suva Nadi-Melbourne-Nadi, value of $190 and $1638 respectively

46. Considering the 1st ingredient it is Dhansukh Lal Bhikha he is the 2nd Accused.

47. The person who is employed in public service is Suliasi Sorovakatini. It is a proven fact before the Court that he is a Public Servant and he was employed as Principal Accounts Officer at Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

48. The ingredients mentioned and at (d) on account of acts done & (e) in the discharge of his duties was already discussed previously that is applicable here also.

49. The main ingredient is corruptly gave. Here it can be divided with two. One is
corruptly and the other is gave. It is before the Court that 1st Accused had received certain benefits namely air tickets from Suva-Nadi-Suva and Nadi-Melbourne-Nadi. 1st Accused claims that it was given to him by Manoj Kumar Bhikha. The 2nd Accused claims he has nothing to do with that.

50. It is the evidence before the Court that the ticket was provided to 1st Accused by Manoj Kumar Bhikha. Further it is evidence before the Court that Manoj Kumar Bhikha was the Executive General Manager who is directly under the Managing Director Dhansukh Lal Bhikha who is the 2nd Accused in this case.

51. LPO at P20 was raised by the Suncourt Hardware on 21/05/2001 for the value of $1750 for Manoj Kumar Bhikha and $1750 for Suliasi Sorovakatini totaling to $3500 for travels mentioned in 2nd and 4th Counts. Lodhias Travels also invoiced for these tickets on 21/05/2001. But the amount was $3656 (as stated in P21F). As per the paid stamp of Suncourt Hardware it was paid by cheque no. 5014. Prosecution witness Yogesh Narayan gave evidence to the effect that the cheque was burnt and they issued another cheque.

52. Suncourt Hardware credit reconciliation statement for Lodhias travel services ltd is available at P21E. In that the 1st column states that a cheque bearing no. 5014 was issued for $3656 and the comments column says 'burnt cheque'. Witness Yogesh Narayan gave evidence that $3656 for the burnt cheque and another $1668 for the travel of Mr. & Mrs. Vinod Bhikha to travel Auckland. The invoice for that travelling is at P21D and the same was approved by the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha.

53. Total amount of $3656 + $1668 is $5324. There is a cheque bearing no. 456602 (P21A) was issued to Lodhias Travel Services Ltd. It should be noted this cheque was signed by 2nd Accused and Manoj Kumar Bhikha. The cheque was raised on 08/10/2001 and dated 15/11/2001. It is further proved that 2nd Accused was in the country on the said 08/10/2001.

54. It should be noted in the 2nd Count the value of the ticket is $190 and the 4th Count the value is $1638. The total was $1828. It is submitted that 1st Accused and Manoj Kumar Bhikha travelled together therefore the total should be $3656. The amount paid was $3656 + $1668 = $5324.00.

It is up to you to consider all and decide whether 2nd Accused knows about this payment or he just signed a blank cheque as he claims.

55. Ingredients in 6th Count are more or less the same as the 2nd and 4th Count except the benefit; the state claims that the 1st Accused was given $10,000 worth of traveller's cheque.

56. Transaction Ledger Report at P17 as an entry that on 22/05/2001 cheque bearing no. 430365 of Bank of Baroda was issued for $10,000. The credit narration say Suliasi Sorovakatini, MKB. Is this MKB means Manoj Kumar Bhikha? At P23A Bank of Baroda cheque bearing no. 430365 is available. The value was $10,000 and signed by the 2nd Accused and Manoj Kumar Bhikha. Once again you have to ask a question an amount $10,000 was just filed or entered with the knowledge of the Managing Director (2nd Accused) who is responsible for overall operation of Suncourt.

58. The Prosecution submits that the cheque was drawn with the supporting entry shows that $10,000 was given to the 1st Accused but the Defence Counsel submits that there is no travellers cheques or numbers were produced in Court. 1st Accused gave evidence to the fact that he was fully taken care by Manoj Kumar Bhikha. Further he was given $500 at Australia. You should be mindful that 1st Accused and Manoj Kumar Bhikha had travelings at Sydney, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Melbourne. There may be expenditures involved at these places.

59. Now we consider the 8 Count. The ingredients we discussed already except corruptly gave a benefit of cash, property and payment to carpenters. There are evidence before the Court that the 1st Accused had a credit account with Suncourt under Account no. HS483. Further there is evidence that there were goods supplied and money advanced to the carpenters. You recall the evidence of Robert Khan who was the contractor for the 1st Accused. 1st Accused also admits of this in open Court but you should be mindful that the 1st Accused claims that this was done on credit basis and only with Manoj Kumar Bhikha. The 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha has nothing to do with this.

60. You heard evidence that the General Manager Manoj Kumar Bhikha and the Financial Controller both reports to the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha.

61. It is evidence before the Court that the P7(1) cheque for the value of $225092.04 was paid by MAFF to Suncourt hardware and the money had gone into Suncourt hardware.

62. It is evidence before the Court that the 1st Accused was given credit (money advance and materials) for the value of $51,921.12. Witness from Suncourt says that there was no repayment from the inception. But the 1st Accused said that he had disputed the amount and paid $200 once. Will a company lend $51,921.12 to a public servant without any repayment? Can a General Manager grant such facilities without the knowledge of the Managing Director who is the 2nd Accused. It is a factual matter. You have to ask yourself before deciding.

63. 1st Accused tells Court that he had disputed the amount therefore it is not settled yet. The staff from Suncourt Hardware submits to Court that they have taken action against the 1st Accused to recover the money. The action were including obtaining caveat against the property of 1st Accused. In 2008 and complainant made credit reference bureau in 2011 even though the Suncourt was a member since 2009.

64. There are some cash advances made in the credit account bearing no. HS483. The relevant cheques were submitted to Court. Almost all the cheques were signed by the 2nd Accused and Manoj Kumar Bhikha. For an example see P28A. It was signed by 2nd Accused and Manoj Kumar Bhikha. In the same this refer P28B. It is a requisition for a cheque. It had been approved by the 2nd Accused. The requisition clearly says the advance is for the 1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini. The amount was $900 and the date was 03/08/2001. It should be noted that the requisition and the cheque are on the same date. The debit note annexed clearly states it is a debtors advance. Does the 2nd Accused knows about the payment or not. You have to decide.

65. It was submitted to Court that the 2nd Accused leaves signed blank cheques. A person of this business and social stature will leave signed blank cheques is a factual matter. But in P29A you may see it was signed by Manoj Kumar Bhikha and 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha. The amount was $850 the date was 10.08.2001. You will notice both the signatories had signed twice in the cheques. Do you consider this as a pre signed blank cheques? The requisition and debit note attached with the cheque clearly indicate it was a debit advance for 1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini.

These are few examples for you to consider whether 2nd Accused knows about the account or not. If he knew about the account, was he actively involved in the operation of the account or not? You should decide.

66. Now I will summarize the evidence of prosecution witnesses. This does not mean you have to consider only what I summarize. I invite you to consider the entire evidence of all witnesses and come to your own conclusion.

67. Prosecution called 17 witnesses. The 1st witness was Mr. Abhi Ram who is the Acting Registrar of Companies. He said Suncourt (wholesalers) Ltd is a registered company and the Directors are:

68. The second witness was Mr. Umesh Chand who was the Manager, Acting Director
and the Team leader of the special audit conducted by the Auditor General department. He is an experienced person in the filed of auditing. He said on the instruction of the Auditor General they conducted the special audit on MAFF. He submitted that the finding was submitted to the parliament by way of Parliamentary paper no. 11 of 2002 which is submitted to Court as P4. There were findings against MAFF, Ministry of Finance and PSC. One of the salient finding was the Interim Government had not approved the expenditure. This audit, you heard that the Ministry personnel including 1st Accused were given opportunity to explain their side of the story. The view of the MAFF were also included in the special audit report.

69. The 3rd witness was Mr. Ashok Kumar. He was attached to the Government
Supplies as Acting Senior Supplies officer and Secretary to the Major Tender Board. He explained the Court what are the limits of purchasing to Government officials as per his evidence. 1st Accused has a limit of $2000 which is also confirmed by the finance regulations. He submitted to Court that at the relevant time the Government supplies had sufficient stock of farming equipments in their stores. As per the Government rules and regulations MAFF should have purchased from them. MAFF had not requested any goods from the Government supply at the relevant period. Further he said the Finance laws, rules and regulations were in force at that time.

70. The 4th witness was Ms. Sereana Bainimarama. She was the Director Admin & Finance. 1st Accused was directly under her supervision. She explained the procedures of procurement. She said there are no deviations from the standard procedure in 2000-2001. She said she was not directly involved in farming assistance programme. She identified the P7 (1) cheque, signature. It was Vanaqolo and 1st Accused, and it was drawn from Agriculture drawing account. She said there was a committee consists of Deputy Secretary Operations Ken Cokanasiga, Aniki Dikoi Draubuta and 1st Accused. They analyse and recommend to Permanent Secretary. She claims she was not in the committee. She further state that financial guidelines never changed. It can be changed only by Permanent Secretary, Finance.

71. 5th witness was Ms. Naomi Cagiloaloa Nailutuva. She was the temporary clerk attached to Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. She said she raised the payment voucher P7 (ii) on the instruction of 1st Accused. She didn't see any LPO and not attached.

72. 6th witness was Ms. Losalini Duru Matavesi. She was the Clerk in charge of bank reconciliation. She was not involved with the scheme. She had seen lot of people coming to MAAF to get farming assistance.

73. The 7th witness was Ms. Lisala Salato Rayasi. She was the clerk attached to MAFF dealing with FNPF. She had worked under 1st Accused. She submitted that the farming assistance programme didn't comply with the finance rules and there was no budget allocation. She confirms that Ministry of Finance seized all finance activities from MAAF.

74. The 8th witness called was Mr. Iliesa Lutu. He was the Internal auditor from the
Ministry of Finance. He submitted to Court that the special audit was initiated on a complaint from public. It is a normal one. Special internal audit was done on 19/07/2001 and completed in October 2001. He told Court that they have found that such farming assistance was not covered under government policy. There was no proper cabinet approval obtained. On the 3rd August 2001 they seized the financial power of the Permanent Secretary and others at MAFF and reverted with the Ministry of Finance. He observed that the financial rules and regulations were in force at the relevant time. On line uploading system was practiced but MAFF had not properly uploaded data to the system.

75. The 9th witness was Atish Chand who was an accounts clerk attached to Suncourt Hardware. He said that 1st Accused owes Suncourt $51,921.12 under Credit Account No. HS483.

76. The 10th witness was Rajneel Chand. He was an accounts clerk attached to Suncourt Hardware. He identified several debit notes where money had been advanced in the 1st Accused's credit account.

77. The 11th witness was Robert Mohammed Hayat Khan. He was a contractor who renovated the house of the 1st Accused. He said he was introduced to 1st Accused by Manoj Kumar Bhikha and a credit facility was arranged at Suncourt Hardware. He had purchased materials from them and collected money advances for the wages of the carpenters.

78. The 12th witness was Evelyn Donu who is the Private Secretary of the 2nd Accused Dhansukh Lal Bhikha. She said the 2nd Accused come in the morning and leaves after a short while. She identified the signature of the 2nd Accused in many documents. She also said that the 2nd Accused signs blank cheques and leaves with the Financial controller. She submitted to Court that the 2nd Accused was involved in many, other activities such as Lord Mayor, Chairman PAFCO, Fiji Cripple Children Society, Red Cross, Hilton Special School, Old Peoples Home, Heart Foundation, Dilkusha etc.

79. The 13th witness was Yogesh Narayan. He was the Head of Creditor department of Suncourt. He confirmed that a LPO was raised for the purchased of ticket for Manoj Kumar Bhikha and 1st Accused Suliasi Sorovakatini. He said the invoice amount was $3656 and it was paid with another payment of $1668 in one cheque for the value of $5324. He identified the requisition for cheque and other documents. He also said that 2nd Accused leaves signed blank cheques with the Finance authorities.

80. 14th witness for the Prosecution was Syed Mohammed Raza. He is the Credit Manager of Suncourt. He confirms that 1st Accused had a credit account under No. HS483. The amount was not repaid and they have taken legal action including obtaining a caveat and entering 1st Accused name at credit reference bureau in 2011.

81. Inspector of Police Nasir Ali was the 15th witness for the Prosecution. He was the team leader of the investigation team. He had recorded the cautioned interview statement of the 1st Accused and part of 2nd Accused.

82. Ram Achaal was the 16th witness for the Prosecution. He was the accounts clerk attached to the MAFF. He said they have uploaded data into the system on daily basis. In addition to that they had a own reporting system. P7 had been posted under capital constructions account.

83. The last witness called by the Prosecution was Inspector of Police Raj Kumar. He was in the team from the beginning and took the leadership after Nasir Ali and recorded the cautioned interview statement of 2nd Accused.

84. After the Prosecution closed the case, I wish to remind you again that the accused
has the right to remain silent, he can give evidence on his behalf or he can call any number of witness on his behalf. Here the 1st Accused opted to give evidence. He gave evidence and submitted that this farming assistance program was done with the approval of the Government of the day. He is 55 years old and married with 5 children. He categorically denied the charges and maintained his innocence. He said if he had not carried out the order his job was at stake therefore he carried out certain orders. He admitted that he went to Australia with Manoj Kumar Bhikha but he submits that this was not given to him for the discharge of his duty. Similarly he submitted that the credit account was just an ordinary business dealings and it has nothing to do with his official duties. He said he had paid $200 once and he didn't repay the credit account because the amount was disputed. It should be noted that he clearly stated that the 2nd Accused has nothing to do with him. He had all his dealings with Manoj Kumar Bhikha. He said this program was a vote buying programme and the Minister and Assistant Minister benefited out of this schemes.

85. The second accused remained silence which is his right as I explained to you earlier. It is the duty of the Prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

86. There are four Counts of charges against each accused persons. You have to consider evidence for each count and decide separately. If an accused is found guilty on one count it does not mean he should be found guilty on the other counts. In other words each and every count should be considered separately and come to a separate conclusion.

87. As you are aware there are two accused persons in this trial, you have to consider evidence against each of the accused persons separately, and decide whether he had committed the offences as charged. Because one accused is found guilty the other accused need not be found guilty. If there is evidence for the charge against an accused you may find him guilty, if not he should be found not guilty.

88. The 2nd, 4th, 6th & 8th Counts state that the 2nd Accused with others committed this offence. The others are not before the Court. 2nd Accused cannot be held responsible for others act unless he had full control over the others and he benefitted at the end.

89. I humbly request you to consider not only my summary but all evidence before the Court and come to your own conclusion. If you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt and you are sure of it. You must find the accused guilty as charged. If you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt and you are not sure of it. You must find the accused not guilty as charged.

90. As I explained to you in my opening address and at the beginning of the summing up you have to take your own decision after considering the evidence before the court. You will not be asked for the reasons for your decision. Your possible verdict will be guilty or not guilty.

91. Let me ask both State Counsel and the Accused whether they have anything to be addressed to you?

(ii) Naomi had not mentioned the fact that the LPO were not there to the Police that is an omission.

(v) The dispute was because 1st Accused assessed the work between $18,000 – 20,000 and the credit was $51,000.

92. You may retire to deliberate. I may request you to take all the documents marked before the Court and your notes. You should consider all documents and evidence and come to your own conclusion. Once you have reached your decision, please advice the Court Clerk so that we can reconvene the Court to receive them.

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

High Court of Fiji

State v Bhika [2011] FJHC 166; HAC116.207 (14 March 2011)