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

State v Ratumala [2016] FJMC 93; Criminal Case 1664.2013 (22 July 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT of Fiji

AT SUVA

Criminal Case No 1664/13

STATE

-v-

ATUNAISA RATUMALA

RULING

1] The accused in this case is charged with theft of $39,684.00 from Fexco Fiji Limited. The charge is as follows;

THEFT: Contrary to Section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

ATUNAISA RATUMALA between the 2nd day of April 2013 to 15th day of June 2013 at Suva in the Central Division dishonestly appropriated a total of $39,684.00 belonging to Fexco Fiji Limited with the intention of permanently depriving the said Fexco Fiji Limited of $39,684.00.

2] The accused pleaded guilty to the charge but disputed the amount mentioned in the charge. Accordingly a Newton hearing was held to decide the amount that the accused is responsible. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the amount mentioned in the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

3] The accused himself has informed PW2, the general manager, on 17.06.2013 about a shortage of money from his till which was allocated to him at the Vinod Patel Center point branch where the accused was employed as the supervisor. He was responsible for cash going out and coming into the branch. He looked after the cheque clearances as well. There is no dispute that the till was allocated to him and he was responsible for the balance of the till.

4] Accused admitted in his evidence that he informed PW2 about the shortage but denied that he informed the amount. After this information Ashnita (PW1), an accounts officer, had gone to the branch and found that the shortage was $39,684.00. The balance that was shown in the system and the balance sheet prepared by the accused himself was $40,044.75.But the physical balance in the till of the accused was $360.75. This difference has reflected in the balance sheet which was prepared by the accused himself. In facts accused has not disputed the amount of the shortage but his defence is that he is responsible for only $12500.00.

5] Accused is fully responsible for the cash in his till according to PW1 and PW2. He is in charge of the till from the morning until the close of the branch. He had the control overthe cash movements of the branch. If the till stands unattended by the accused at his lunch time he is supposed to lock the till. PW2 in his evidence said that there was a strict policy in the company that the keys of the till cannot be given to others. The accused said in his evidence that the custody of the till was only with him. PW1 said that it was his duty to check the balance in the system daily and verify the actual balance in the particular till. He is supposed to report any shortage or surplus in the till to the accounts department of the company. This is undisputed evidence because no question with regard to that had been raised by the defence in cross examination.

6] The accused has given a letter to PW2 admitting his liability to a sum of $39,684 on 8.7.2013. This letter was tendered in evidence marked as PEx 1 by the prosecution. In PEx 1 the accused says that the money was used for his personal business. He took up the same position in his evidence but said that he took only $12500. He also said that no one forced him to sign the letter although it is a type written one.

7] The accused in his caution interview (marked as PEx 2) also admitted that he took $39,684. This admission was not challenged by the defence. Further the accused in his evidence said that he had the opportunity in the caution interview to tell what he wanted. There is no doubt about the voluntariness of the statement. Hence caution interview can be admitted as evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

8] The accused giving evidence said that he didn’t know where the money has gone but he took only $12500 for his personal business. He had a business of money lending and hiring vehicles. He said “I took money little by little.’’ As said before there is no dispute about the actual balance of the till. The accused further said that “I am not sure whether I took or not. I am sure $12500. About $39000 I am not sure.”The accused once in his evidence said that people(he meant other employees) were borrowing money from his till. But they did not pay back. Yet in cross examination he said“I don’t know where the money has gone”. However the accused has never made a complaint to PW2 about any shortage of money from his till although he prepared balance sheets. Therefore it appears that the defence itself is contradictory. Accordingly the defence has failed to create any doubt on the prosecution case.

9] For the reasons adduced above this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused is responsible for theft of $39684.00

28 days to appeal

PRIYANTHA LIYANAGE

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, SUVA

22/07/2016