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

State v Narayan [1993] FJHC 29; Hac0011t.91s (18 March 1993)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Criminal Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11 OF 1991

THE STATE

v.

BIRENDRA NARAYAN
s/o Deo Narayan

LARCENY BY SERVANT: Contrary to Section 274(a)(i)
of the Penal Code Cap. 17

Mr. I. Wickramanayake for the State
Mr. S.M. Koya for the Accused

SENTENCE

The accused Birendra Narayan has been convicted of an offence of Larceny by Servant. The amount alleged in the information is a sum slightly in excess of $40,000. Having considered the matter however I am satisfied that a lesser amount is actually involved in this offence which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

That maximum penalty is an indication of the seriousness with which the offence is viewed by our legislature based as it often is on a breach or abuse of trust by an employee who usually handles money.

In this case the accused was an Accounts Clerk of Suncourt (Fiji) Limited charged amongst other duties with the responsibility of preparing cheques and doing bankings for the company. In the course of discharging those duties he committed the offence over a period of approximately one year.

A large sum of money in excess of $16,000 has been stolen by the accused and nothing has been repaid or recovered.

I have heard the evidence of the accused's witness as to character and have no reason to doubt any of it and although the accused has a prior conviction for an offence of dishonesty it is some 20 odd years old and I ignore it in my deliberations.

I have considered the various matter raised by learned counsel for the accused in mitigation and precedents cited but am firmly of the view that other cases can be only limited assistance to a Court faced with the difficult task of passing a sentence which is fair and just.

In that respect it is my firm view that except in exceptional circumstances a suspended sentence ought not to be imposed for a fraud involving a large sum of money.

Viewed in that light I am not persuaded that this is an exceptional case.

Accordingly the most lenient sentence that this Court can pass in the particular circumstances of this case is one of imprisonment for 15 months.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
18th March, 1993.

HAC0011T.91S