La PSSA poursuivie a cause de l’état déplorable de son QG

La PSSA était poursuivie en Cour Industrielle a cause de l’état déplorable de son quartier général a Beau Bassin. Elle s’en est sortie grâce à un acte d’accusation défectueux. Elle était représentée en Cour par son directeur. A l’appel du proces, l’avocat de la PSSA a fait une ‘’submission of no case to answer on the group that in the light of the evidence on record as regards ownership of the buildings and in the light of Sections 13 and 20 of the PSSA Act 1976, the alleged offences have not been proved and cannot be proved.’’ La magistrate Sheila Bonomally lui a donné raison. Elle a expliqué: In the present case, the offences preferred against the Accused which is a corporate entity are not clearly stated in the heading of the information nor in its body as they do not contain all the constitutive elements thereof.

 It is abundantly clear that the offences have not been described as per the exact citation of the law in the information given that Section 44(1) (b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act has not been added and nor has the provision of Section 44(1) (b) been found in the body of the information because there is no indication of the name of the ‘’director’’, the representative of the accused company, in the sense as being a physical person among the identified persons as being ‘’concerned in the management of the Accused/body corporate’’ which element is missing because mens rea cannot be severed from the provisions of Section 44(1) (b) of the IGCA as illustrated above.

Therefore, the information as presently worded will be tantamount to have for effect for the prosecution to be able to ensure a conviction merely as a result of a salaried post only ‘’director’’ within the body corporate because it has not been averred therein any identified individual whose relevant criminal conduct could be attributable to the Accused. It means that for the present information to be valid, an identified individual would suffice to have been averred as being concerned with the management of the body corporate because of the requirement of mens rea. It does not matter if another identified individual represents the Accused at trial stage provided that it is from the pool of identified individuals as it is the body corporate that is being prosecuted.’’

Posted by Minority Voice on Aug 14 2019. Filed under Faits Divers, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry