Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Magistrates Court of Fiji

Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption v Maharaj [2013] FJMC 348; Crminal Case1282.2012 (19 September 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case : 1281/2012

FICAC

VS

RUDRA MAHARAJ

For Prosecution : Mr. Aslam
For Accused : Mr. Kahn

RULING

[1] The accused has been charged with one count of Bribery contrary to section 5( 2) (a ) of the Prevention of Bribery Promulgation No. 12 of 2007.

[2] When this was called on 03 May 2013 the FICAC made an application for this case to be transferred to the High Court for following reasons.

1. The nature and seriousness of the offence
2. The nature of the employment of the respondent as a public officer
3. The amount of bribery accepted is substantially high
4. Public interest factor
   

[3] The defense objected to this application and both parties tendered written submission setting down their grounds.

[4] Section 191 of the Criminal Procedure Decree states that a magistrate may transfer any charge or proceedings to the High Court.

[5] As this application was made by the prosecution relevant section would be section 188(2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree. Section 188(2) states as follows:

"Before the calling of evidence at trial, an application may be made by a public prosecutor or police prosecutor that the case is one which should be tried by the High Court, and upon such an application the magistrate shall —

(a) hear and consider the reasons for the application;

(b) hear and consider any submissions made on behalf of the accused person as to the most appropriate court to hear and determine the charges; and

(c) otherwise determine matters relevant to the grounds for the application –

and may continue to hear the case (unless the charges are of a nature that may be tried only by the High Court) or transfer the case to the High Court under Division 3 of this Part."

[6] As mentioned above the reasons given by the prosecution for this application are that the offence is serious, the accused was working at the office of Prime Minister, the amount is substantially high and the public interest.

[7] The reason for the defence's objection is that by transferring the case to the High Court the trial would be delayed as this would be heard in High Court late in the year 2014. Also they pointed out that the prosecution delayed making this application to the Court.

[8] I do not think there is unreasonable delay in the part of the prosecution. Initial stages were taken for bail and about the disclosers. Also the prosecution correctly made this application before the hearing.

[9] Only prejudiced the defence argue was that by transferring the hearing would go down to late 2014.But even if this matter is taken in this Court only dates available would be in 2014.

[10] Also I would agree with the reasons for the prosecution's application. Even though the accused was presumed innocence the charge is serious and the amount is substantially high. Also the accused was employed in a high position in an important place.

[11] Therefore I believe right forum to try this matter is in the High Court. I grant the application for this to be transferred to High Court.

19/09/2013

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate