IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 402 of 2013

STATE

V

RAJESH CHAND

Prosecution: PC Monish
Accused:  Mr Ratule. K

Judgment: 19 June 2015 

JUDGMENT

1. 	Mr Rajesh Chand, the Accused is charged with one count of Theft contrary to section 291 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009. 

2.	On 1 October 2013, the Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded for hearing on 20 April, 2015.
 
3.	The Accused was charged with the above offence for stealing a black wallet containing $105.00 cash the property of Maikeli Tuqisi on 30 June 2013, at Labasa in the Northern Division.

4.	The Prosecution called the complainant Maikeli Tuqisi, the Investigation Officer and the Charging Officer as his witnesses. The Accused is the only witness for the Defence.

5.	The Complainant on the date of the incident, forgot his black wallet on the dashboard of the Accused taxi. The Accused admit found the wallet in his taxi. The Complainant confirmed that the wallet tendered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1 is his by proving the logo mark in the purse and the denomination of the dollar notes in the wallet. I am satisfied that the wallet tendered by the prosecution is the purse of the Complainant.

6.	The Accused is charge for theft under section 291 of the Crimes Decree which state – A person commits a summary offence if he or she dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.

7.	The Accused found the wallet in his taxi at his home when he was washing his taxi. The Accused returned back to Crown Taxi base after washing his taxi. The Accused taxi was parked at the base when the Complainant came and asked the Accused if he had taken his wallet and the Accused said no. The Complainant then reported the matter to the Police.

8.	The Accused did not challenge the caution interview. In his answer to question 32 and 33 he said that he saw the Complainant put the bible on top of the dashboard with a black coloured wallet. Further, in question 37, Accused admit that the wallet shown to him in the caution interview is the same wallet he saw the Complainant put on top of the dashboard in his taxi. In question 43, the Accused admit knowing that the purse belong to the Complainant.

 9.	In cross examination, the Accused admit that he knew that the wallet had belong to Mr Tuqisi and he failed to return his wallet.

10.	In light of the above evidence, I find that at the time the Accused find the black wallet, he has a clear idea of the owner. When the Complainant asked the Accused at the Crown Taxi base if the Accused had find his wallet, when the Accused answered that he did not take the purse and did not return the wallet to the Complainant he satisfied the elements of theft where he dishonestly appropriates the wallet of the Complainants and also satisfied the element of intention to permanently deprive the Complainant of his wallet and its content because the Complainant asked the Accused after the Accused had found the wallet.

11.	In assessing the evidence of the Complainant and the Accused, I find the evidence of the Complainant is consistence and the evidence of the Accused was inconsistent when he made admission in the caution interview and cross examination and denial in his examination in chief. I find the evidence of the Accused to be more credible then the evidence of the Complainant.

12.	I find that the prosecution has proved the element of this offence against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.

13.	In my Judgment, I find the Accused guilty as charged and I convict the Accused as charged.

28 day to appeals

..........................................
Cama M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE