IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC0003 OF 2005S

STATE

v.

SANJAY SHANKAR SHARMA
f/n Rakesh Shankar Sharma

Hearing: 18th February 2005
Sentence: 25th February 2005

Counsel: Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu for State
Mr. N. Lajendra for Accused

SENTENCE

Sanjay Shankar Sharma, you have pleaded guilty to 12 counts of forgery, uttering forged document, and obtaining money on forged document.

The maximum sentence for forgery and uttering is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence for obtaining on forged document is 14 years imprisonment. These statutory maximum terms indicate to the courts, how serious Parliament considers these offences to be. The tariff for fraud offences is 18 months to 3 years imprisonment, with suspended sentences reserved for cases where there has been full restitution as an indication of remorse. I take into account the remaining counts on the original Information of 51 counts, and in particular take into account that the total amount you defrauded from the Carpenters Motors is $619,908.35.

You committed these offences whilst you were employed as a payment clerk at Carpenters Motors and, did so over a period of 4 months. You deposited all the money you stole into your bank account and the State was able to freeze that account so that the money can be eventually restored to Carpenters Motors.

Given the scale of the fraud, I take as my starting point 2 years imprisonment. Aggravating factors are the gross breach of trust, the planning behind the fraud and the large sum of money defrauded. I increase your sentence to 4 years imprisonment.

In your favour is your good character, the fact that you are now a University student, your age of 20 years, your early guilty plea and the fact that you have not spent the money defrauded. In respect of this last factor, I cannot treat your case as though you had restored the money to the complainant, because the State had to apply for a restraining order to freeze your account. However, your statement to the police shows that you were willing to pay the victim back as soon as you were apprehended. I take account of the fact that the victim will not be out of pocket. Taking all these factors into account, I arrive at a sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

Although this is a large scale fraud, which would normally not warrant suspension, there are two exceptional matters in this case. The first is your extreme youth. The second is your reluctance to spend the stolen money, either on yourself or on others. There are two other factors worth mentioning. One is your sincere desire to effect reparation, and the other is the fact that the victim has unconditionally forgiven you for your acts.

As Gates J said in State v. Mahendra Prasad HAC009.02S, where there is an earnest and sincere wish to effect reparation to the victim, and where that wish is prompt and an expression of remorse, a suspended sentence is not wrong in principle.

For these reasons, I sentence you to 2 years imprisonment on each count, to be suspended for two years. All are concurrent to each other.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
25th February 2005