Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Sami [1977] FJSC 23; Criminal Appeal 021 of 1977 (13 May 1977)

Fiji Islands - Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Sami - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 1977

BETWEEN:

:

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

AND:

KRISHNA br> s/o RATTAN SAMI

DGMENT

p>

On the 15th February 1977 at Suva Magistrates Court the respondent was convicted of failing to deliver returns as required by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue contto sections 49(1) and 95 of95 of the Income Tax Act 1974 and of failing to deliver statements as required by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue contrary to sections 49(2) and 95 of the Income Tax Act 1974, and was fined 20 cents a day for a period of six months on each count, making a total fine of $72.

The appellant has appealed on the grounds that the sentence is manifestly lenient having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offence, and that the learned Magistrate erred in law in considering that he was dealing with an offence the maximum penalty for which was $10 per day only, whereas the true maximum was $40 per day.

Dealing with the second ground of appeal first, this is misconceived as a perusal of the record reveals quite clearly that the trial Magistrate was well aware that the maximum penalty was $40 per day. He was reminded of it by counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and when delivering sentence the trial Magistrate specifically stated that the "maximum fine is $40 per day".

With regard to the first ground of appeal, the trial Magistrate fully considered the matter and gave his reasons in detail for the sentences imposed. He also referred to an appellate court decision namely The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Baravi Joinery Limited (Suva Criminal Appeal No. 52/76) in which the learned Judge when deciding on the appropriate sentence took into account that the matter should have been prosecuted with much greater promptness, a factor equally relevant in this case.

An appellate court does not interfere with sentence merely because the appellate court, if sitting at first instance, would have imposed a higher or lower penalty. The sentence must be shewn to be wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate or excessive.

There is nothing wrong in principle with the sentences imposed nor are they manifestly inadequate. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

There is no more merit in this appeal than there was in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Shiu Charan (Suva Criminal Appeal No. 10/77) and had the respondent herein been put to the expense of instructing counsel on this appeal, which he was not. I would have seriously considered awarding costs against the appellant.

Clifford H. Grant
Chief Justice

Suva,
13th May 1977.