Chandra v Reginam [1978] FJSC 31; Criminal Appeal 021 of 1978 (28 April 1978)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
Appellate Jurisdiction

Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1978

Between:

BISWAS CHANDRA
s/o RAM CHANDRA

and

REGINAM

JUDGMENT

On the 14th February 1978 at Suva Magistrates Court the appellant was convicted on his own plea of six offences of fraudulent falsification of accounts contrary to section 340(1) of the Penal Code, and upon imposing a sentence of fifteen months' imprisonment on each count concurrent the trial Magistrate also took into consideration six additional offences of a similar nature.

It was urged by counsel for the appellant that as restitution is being made a suspended sentence would be justified; and this submission was supported by counsel for the Crown.

Restitution may be taken into account, as may a plea of guilty, as showing remorse on the part of the offender justifying some reduction in sentence. But it can never justify a complete departure from the type of sentence which the offences warrant. There is not one law, for the rich and one for the poor.

This was not an isolated incident, for which a suspended sentence may have been appropriate. The appellant, a bank officer, abused his position of trust by engaging in a planned course of criminal conduct involving over $2,500 and extending over a period of nine months; and in such circumstances an immediate custodial sentence was inevitable.

It is clear from the record that the trial Magistrate, in the length of sentence that he imposed, took into consideration everything that he could in favour of the appellant, including the fact that restitution was being made, and the term imposed is by no means excessive.

The appeal is dismissed.

Clifford H. Grant
Chief Justice

Suva,
28th April 1978.