State v Ranadi [2010] FJMC 37; Criminal Case 24 of 2009 (21 January 2010)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Criminal Case No: 24/09

BETWEEN

THE STATE

AND

SISILIA RANADI

SENTENCE

You Sisilia Ranadi, are to be sentenced upon pleading guilty to the charges of forgery, uttering forged document and obtaining money on forged document.

Section 341(1) of the Penal Code says that forgery is a misdemeanour and the maximum sentence is 2 years imprisonment according to Section 47 of the penal Code.

The maximum Sentence for uttering forged documents contrary to Section 343(1) of the Penal Code is also 2 years imprisonment.

The maximum sentence for obtaining money on forged document contrary to Section 345 is fourteen years imprisonment.

In this case for the first and second counts I pick my starting point as six months.
For the third count I pick my starting point as eighteen months.

According to the summary of facts you had been working for the Lautoka Magistrate court as a Messenger/ cleaner.

Upon a complaint made my the Senior Court Officer regarding two missing cheques from the court registry between January to September 2009, police have arrested and produced you on 12th January 2010.

You have taken a cheque dispatched by the accounts section of the High Court, Suva for a case in Magistrate's court Lautoka. The cheque has been in the name of one Ruby Leilani Whippy as an award by a small claims tribunal case.

It was revealed that you have taken the cheque without entering it in the register. Subsequently you have forged it and have presented it to R B Patel, Lautoka and have collected a sum of 300 dollars.

Although the amount you have taken in this case is 300 dollars it appears that you have committed a very serious crime as a government servant. A lot of trust and confidence is expected from and placed on an employee who works for a Court of law and you had been given access to the cases of the public which involves a lot of money and important documents.

You have breached that trust and confidence by committing this crime. Specially a person who works for a court of law has to be aware of the consequences and has to be extra cautious in carrying out duties. A lot of public money and other important and valuable documents are involved in cases in a magistrate's court and the public expect that a government servant would be trustworthy at all times or at least during the official duties.

This kind of actions could invariably damage the public confidence in the judicial system and will have to be looked at in a very serious manner. Thus the court has to consider the degree of trust reposed on government servants and the effect of the breach of such trust, when sentencing an offender.

At the same time when imposing a sentence in a case of this nature the court have to be mindful of the deterrent effect of such sentencing and the impact on the society.

Thus for the aggravating circumstances of this case I decide to enhance the sentence for the first, second and the third counts by three months.

Prosecution informed court that you are a first offender and has no previous convictions. Also you have pleaded guilty at the very outset. In sentencing, the court has taken in to consideration that you have been in remand for nearly a week now.

In mitigation you said you are 25 years and that you seek forgiveness for what you have done. Further you said that you can repay the money. Apart from that you did not say anything further in mitigation. The court did not observe that you are remorseful of your actions. It should be noted that just because some one is ready to pay back what was stolen it does not necessarily reduce the gravity and the liability of that act.

However your employment is already terminated and you will not be able to find an employment in the government sector again.

The court is mindful of the fact that you are still at very young age and the court has a duty to give you an opportunity to correct yourself and at the same time to impose an appropriate and commensurate sentence.

Thus having considered the mitigatory circumstances of this case I decide to reduce the sentence for the first and the second counts by six months.

Specially having considered the young age, the fact that you have already been terminated from service and the fact that you have volunteered to pay back the amount of money you have taken, I reduce the sentence for the third count by twelve months although it could be far below the tariff.

Thus I sentence you in the following manner.

1. For the first count I impose a three months imprisonment
2. For the second count I impose a three months imprisonment
3. For the third count I impose a nine months imprisonment and a 300 dollars fine. In default one month imprisonment.
   

The fine should be paid under Section 161(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code to Ruby Leilani Whippy as compensation for the loss caused by this offence.

All the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently.

Three months to pay the fine.

28 days to appeal.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate

21.01.2010