Supreme Court frees civil servant on larceny, forgery charges

-Claim conviction was built on suspicion
IN 1961, the Federal Supreme Court upturned a High Court jury guilty verdict of larceny and forgery, thereby allowing the accused to go free on the grounds that the prosecution’s evidence supporting guilt was based on suspicion.
The appellant, Meerabux, was indicted for larceny of a cheque book.  The indictment also contained counts against him and two other appellants, namely Thomas and Seales, for forgery  and the uttering of two cheques,  and obtaining money upon the forged cheques.
He was acquitted of the charges of uttering and obtaining money, but convicted of larceny and forgery.
According to the facts at hand, the police intercepted a sum of money which Meerabux had give to one ‘JC’.    He was subsequently taken to the Police Station and questioned, whereupon he told the police that one ‘R’ had given the money to him for safekeeping.  He was detained at the station, and the following evening, he gave another statement in which he repeated that ‘R’ had given him the money to keep.  He was still kept in custody.
On the following evening, he was again questioned.  He was then confronted with ‘R’, who denied that he had ever given the appellant money to keep.  On further questioning, the appellant made no admission.   A recording machine was then brought in and a conversation between the appellant and ‘R’ six days previously was heard when the machine was switched on.   The appellant then admitted that the two statements he had given were untrue. He subsequently gave a statement admitting his guilt.
The Federal Supreme Court, constituted by Chief Justice Gomes and Justices of Appeal Wylie and Lewis, held that “… the appellant must have given the third statement in order to secure  his release;  [that] it was not free and voluntary and was therefore inadmissible.”
This being the case, the appeal was allowed.
Queen’s Counsel, Mr. Fred Wills appeared for the appellant, Meerabux, while Messrs. E.A. Romao and D. Singh, both lawyers,  represented the Crown.
Justice Gomes, who delivered the judgment of the court, noted that the  three appellants were tried on charges arising out of the disappearance  of a cheque book containing  187  cheque forms  from the  Medical Department of the Government  of British Guiana on July 25, 1959, and the subsequent presentation  to the  bank for payment,  on August 26, 1959,  of  two cheques, which, the evidence showed, came from that bank.
According to Justice Gomes, Meerabux was convicted of larceny of a cheque book, a charge preferred against him alone, and on two charges of forgery, one in respect of each of the two cheques presented for payment.
Meerabux was found not guilty on two charges  of uttering the cheques,  and two charges of obtaining money upon a forged instrument, said  charges  being in respect of the presentation of the two cheques for payment at the bank.   The other two appellants were jointly indicted and tried with Meerabux on all these charges except the charge of larceny.   The appellant, Thomas was found not guilty on the two charges of forgery,  but  guilty on the charges  of uttering  and of  obtaining  money.
The appellant, Seales was found guilty of all  six charges brought against him.
Said Justice Gomes: “All three appellants have appealed against their convictions  and sentences  on a number of grounds, some of which were not pursued before  this court.   The remaining grounds are referred to later in this judgment.”
The evidence established  that  the cheque-book  was kept in the custody  of one Benjamin , a clerk in the Medical Department,  who, in 1950, was cashier  in the Mosquito Control Section of the department.  He was  issued with the cheque-book in connection with his duties as cashier,  and kept it in a safe.
Benjamin stated in evidence that on the morning  of July 25, on arrival  at work , he opened his safe,  checked the contents and saw that the cheque-book was there.   He then locked  his safe again.  He said that at about  8:30am,  the appellant  Meerabux  came to him and told him  that he had heard Benjamin  was to be transferred  and Meerabux named as his successor.
Meerabux  asked Benjamin to show him his work.  In the course of doing this, Benjamin  opened the safe in the presence of the appellant  and the two checked  the contents.   At one stage, Benjamin left t the appellant alone   at the safe for a short period.
While Benjamin was showing  the appellant  other aspects of his work , according  to Benjamin, the appellant  told him  not  to look around  as he (the appellant) did not want others  to know  that Benjamin was showing  him  his work.
At about 9am, the appellant returned to Benjamin  with  two parcels in large official envelopes  containing books,  which he asked Benjamin to keep  in his safe  because the appellant’s  safe  was full.   Benjamin enquired  if  there were any cheque-books in the parcels.
When the appellant said  there were, Benjamin said  this would require  the accountant’s approval, but the appellant asked him to dispense  with this because  he (the appellant)  did not get on with the accountant.
At about 10am, the appellant again returned and asked for the two cheque- books.    Benjamin opened the safe and handed the two parcels to the appellant, who took out the cheque-books.   The appellant  said he would return for the parcels about 11am, but,  at about 11:30am,   he sent a labourer  named Swami who had called on the appellant  to be paid, to collect the parcels.
“When Benjamin took out the parcels,” Justice Gomes said, “he discovered  his own cheque-book was missing , put the parcels back in the safe and,  after searching for his cheque-book  (including checking with the appellant  and searching the latter’s safe ), he reported  the loss.”   None of the cheques was ever recovered,  except the two presented for payment.
During the search, Benjamin found  his bank deposit book  was also missing, and  that also has never been recovered.  In cross-examination, Benjamin said that he had gone to the safe several times in the course of his duties  that morning.  There were three other employees working in Benjamin’s office.
In his statement from the dock, the appellant does not refer to the incident of July 25 at all.  In three statements made in the course of departmental  and police  enquiries, the appellant states that he remembered later  there were two cheque  books  in the parcels,  and he then went back and took out the cheque, opening and closing  up  the parcels  on the floor. He does not refer to any earlier meeting, as related by Benjamin, when the latter showed him his work.
After referring to other aspects of the case, Chief Justice Gomes said: “In our view, the circumstances related above  must have operated  on the appellant’s  mind  to induce him to make a further statement  in retraction  to his two prior statements , in order  to secure his release.
“We do not agree with the leaned trial judge that the caution which he found was admitted immediately before  the statement  was reduced  into writing  was sufficient  in the circumstances  to  dissipate this improper inducement.
“It certainly had the desired  effect,  for the appellant made the third statement, and the significant fact is that he was released  as soon as he  made  it, when,  apparently, all  the other reasons that had been given  for his detention disappeared.
“In these circumstances, we fail to see how  it can be maintained  that the  statement  was admissible as a free and voluntary statement. In our view, it was not.
“Agreeing as we do  with the submissions  of counsel  for appellant  in regard to the conclusion  or inference  to be made from the jury’s verdict,  there only remains  for consideration  the question whether  there is sufficient evidence  to support the conviction for larceny.
“We  have carefully examined  the remainder  of the  evidence  that was  adduced  on  the count  of  larceny  of the cheque book,  and we have also considered the facts  and circumstances  which were advanced  in argument  by Counsel for the Crown in support  of the conviction, and we have come to the conclusion  that while they amount to a strong suspicion  that the appellant  was the thief , the facts proved  do not, in our view, establish that convincing degree of  proof  which is necessary  for a conviction,  and,  of course,  a person cannot be  convicted on suspicion  alone.”
“The conviction for larceny must therefore be quashed and, as the reasons which we have  given above apply equally to the charges for forgery, the conviction for forgery must also be set aside,” Chief Justice Gomes  said as he allowed  the appeal on behalf   of  the court.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.