IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. HAA 001 /2012

BETWEEN:

RAJENDRA PRASAD BROTHERS LIMITED
Appellant

AND:

FIJI COMMERCE COMMISSION
Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice P. K. Madigan

COUNSEL: Ms. A. Mataitiwa for Respondent
Aman Ram (in person) for Appellant

Date of Hearing: 1st February 2012

Date of Judgment: 7th February 2012

JUDGMENT

1.	The appellant company was charged in the Magistrates Court at Suva with one offence of offering for sale price controlled items at excessive price. The offence being contrary to paragraph 6(1) (a) and (b) of the Commerce (Price Control) (Percentage Control of Prices for Food Items) (No. 1) Order 2010 (Legal Notice No.101) and Section 44(1), 49(2) a & b, 52 (a), 132 (1) (2) and Section 129(1A) of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010.

2.	The particulars were that the appellant company offered for sale 7 tins of 900 gm S26 Soy all ages from Birth Infant Formula at $35.56 instead of $34.25, an excess of $2.31 per 900gm tin and 9 tins of 900 gm S26 Original Step 1 Infant Formula at $34.25 instead of $33.90, an excess of 35c per 900gm tin.

3.	To these offences, Mr. Ram as a representative of the company (and now appearing on this appeal), entered a plea of guilty on behalf of the respondent company. He submitted a letter of mitigation to the Court.

4.	The maximum penalty for this offence if a first offence is $5,000 and if a subsequent offence $10,000.

5.	In sentencing the company, the learned Magistrate took into account the plea of guilty, that it was a first offence and that remorse was expressed through its agent, Mr. Ram. She sentenced the company to a fine of $1000 and to costs of $35.50.

6.	The company appeals the sentence on the general grounds that the fine (of $1000) was harsh and excessive and further:

(i)	That the price control order was not specific enough which resulted in confusion;

(ii)	That the price control orders were legally invalid;

(iii)	The fine imposed by the Magistrate "had no legal base", and

(iv)	That the early plea of guilty should have resulted in a "minimum fine".

7.	At the hearing, the agent for the company was unable to tell me why the orders were invalid, nor could he explain why the fine had no legal base.

8.	The maximum fine being $5000, this fine is well within the authority of the Magistrate to impose although it is higher than fines usually passed for the same offence. The accused company appears to have an overly optimistic view of the effect of its early plea of guilty.

9.	The appeal against sentence has no merit and it is dismissed.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Suva 
7th February 2012