Prices and Incomes Board v Cost U Less (CUL) Fiji Ltd [2010] FJMC 152; Criminal Case 1216.2009 (5 May 2010)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: 1216 of 2009

PRICES AND INCOMES BOARD

V

COST U LESS (CUL)-FIJI LTD

For Prosecution: Mr. Raikanikoda (PIB)
For Accused: Mr. Tuitoga

SENTENCE

1. Accused in this case was charged for "Having for sale by retail certain fixed price control goods at an excessive price", by the Prices and Incomes Board.
   
2. Accused was represented by Mr. Tuitoga and on behalf of his client plead guilty to the charge.
   
3. When "summary of facts" had been read over in the open Court, Counsel admitted the facts as outlined by the prosecution and the accused was convicted as charged. Thereafter the Counsel for the accused moved the Court for a date to file mitigation submissions in writing.
   
4. According to the facts which have admitted by the counsel, upon an inspection which was based on a complaint, PIB had found that the accused had for sale approximately 62 packets of 375g FMF breakfast crackers at $1.37 per packet instead of $1.23 per packet. Selling price was in excess of $ 0.14 per packet to the maximum calculated price.
   
5. Maximum penalty imposed under S. 32 of the Counter Inflation Act-Cap 73 is $ 2000 and there is no minimum penalty identified by the section.
   
6. According to the mitigation submission Counsel informed the Court that a part of the fault is with the Flour Mills of Fiji Ltd (FMF), as they have not advice the CUL about the change in price. Letter issued by the FMF supports this position is marked as "Annexure 3".
   
7. Accused co. admitted that they have sold 417 packets of FMF Breakfast Crackers at the excess price amounting to an overcharge of $58.38.
   
8. Counsel for the accused urged the Court to act under sec. 15 (j) and 45 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree 2009.
   
9. According to the Sec. 15(j) and sec. 45, if a court finds an accused person guilty, Court is empowered to dismiss the charge without recording a conviction.
   
10. However much this court appreciate the mitigation submissions, the above-mentioned path is no longer possible for the reason that this Court has already convicted the accused on 30th March 2010 upon the summary of facts being admitted by the counsel. Since it is highly inappropriate for this court to act contrary to what is already on record, following orders are made considering the proposals made in mitigation submission.
    
11. Accused company is ordered to pay $500 as fine and $33.75 as prosecution costs within 21 days.
    

On this Wednesday the 05th day of May 2010

Kaweendra Nanayakkara
Resident Magistrate