In a judgment delivered last week the Acting Senior District Magistrate, Padmini D. Mauree, has found that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused party beyond reasonable doubt for his having embezzled a private car registration number BM 786 to the prejudice of the complainant. The said car had been delivered to the accused in pursuance of a contract of deposit on the condition that the car be kept as guarantee upon receiving a loan of Rs 30,000 from the accused.
As per particulars, the complainant, being in financial difficulties, went to the place of the accused whom he knows as money lender for a loan. The accused accepted to lend him the sum of Rs 30,000 and that same be refunded within one month with interest of Rs 7,500 on the condition that and he has to deposit car No BM 786 as guarantee which he did. On June 28, 2007 the complainant called at the place of the accused to refund the sum of Rs 37,500 and to take back the car. However he failed to do so as the accused had already sold the car for Rs 60,000 to one R.L on June 26, 2007.
The accused refused to take the money saying there was a mistake as his son had met with an accident with the car and damaged its rear booth so that the car had been sent for repair at Plaisance. The complainant went to see the accused several times in order to get back his car but to no avail. A few months later the complainant got information that his car was being driven by somebody else. He went to meet that person to ask why his car was with him. The latter said that he had bought same for Rs 60,000.
Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and conducted his own defence. In her ruling the Magistrate underlined that the accused party struck the court as an experience conman, schemer well versed in the art of make believe, deceit, strategy and all types of artful devices to achieve his dishonourable aims.
First he made use of his position as usurer to demand the imposition of a security as a guarantee for the sum of money to be refunded by the complainant. Secondly he made use of the complainant having foolishly left the sale paper of the car and a copy of same. On one of the sale papers which was left blank accused got his name and signature inserted afterwards. Thirdly he then used the paper to sell the car to Mr Luttoo. Fourthly the accused tried to make use of this sale paper to try to throw discredit on the complainant that the car was bought by him and not the complainant.
Given the particular nature and circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the charge, the trouble and annoyance, hassle caused to the complainant and Mr Luttoo to whom the accused illegally sold the car without title, the various stratagems and subterfuge which the accused resorted to in this case to cover up the matter, the length of time of the police enquiry and the prosecution of the accused party, the Court is of the opinion that a probation order, conditional discharge or a community service order would not meet the interest of justice in the present case.
Hence the magistrate decided to convict the accused to a term of imprisonment. “I have taken into consideration that the accused party is an old man. However, I am of the view that a custodial sentence is warranted in order to have a deterrent effect and send a strong signal that such types of offences and conduct would not be leniently dealt with. I therefore sentence the accused party to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 fine along with 6 months’ imprisonment and Rs 100 costs,” the Magistrate concluded.
