Welcome to the new SeyLII website. Enjoy an improved search engine and new collections. If you are used to accessing SeyLII via Google, note Google will take some time to re-index the site.

We are still busy migrating some of the old content. If you need anything in particular from the old website, it will be available for a while longer at https://old.seylii.org/

Court name
Supreme Court
Case number
CN 4 of 2015

Vel v R (CN 4 of 2015) [2016] SCSC 870 (10 November 2016);

Media neutral citation
[2016] SCSC 870
Burhan, J


Criminal  Side: CN 04/2015
Appeal  from Magistrates  Court  decision 468/2014


(2016) SCSC 870








Heard: 7 November   2016

Counsel: Mr. Leslie  Boniface  Attorney  at Law for appellant

             Mr. Khalyaan  Karunakaran,   State Counsel  for the Republic


Delivered: 11 November   2016






Burhan  J



[1]        The Appellant  was charged  in the Magistrates'   Court  with the following  offence:


Count  1

Housebreaking Contrary to Section 289(a) of the Penal Code

Particulars of offence are that Dereck Vel, 32 years old, residing at Les /vlamelles, Mahe on the 4'" day of July 201-1at, Perseverance, Mahe broke and entered into the dwelling house of Lucille Felix, with intent to commit afe/ony  therein namely stealing.


Count  2

Stealing from  dwelling house Contrary to Section 260 and Punishable under Section 264 (b) of the Penal Code.

Particulars of offence are that, Dereck Vel, 32 years old, residing at Les Mamelles, Mahe on the 4111 day of July 2014 at, Perseverance, Mahe stole from the dwelling house of Lucille Felix, one white Ipad make Samsung Galaxy' and Rs.3001- in. One hundred rupee notes being the property of Rashield Felix.


[2]       The Appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilt and sentenced to a term of 4 years imprisonment 011 Count 1 and to a term of 3 years imprisonment on Count 2. The learned Magistrate made further order that both terms run consecutively.

(3]       It is apparent from his.order that the learned Magistrate had addressed his mind to the case of Jean Frederick Ponoo v The Attorney  General SCA 3812010 and proceeded to impose terms of imprisonment  less than the minimum  mandatory terms  provided  for by law. Therefore it cannot be said the learned Magistrate was harsh and excessive.

[4]       However, considering the fact that the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction, it would be appropriate that the terms of imprisonment imposed by the learned Magistrate, be made to run concurrently and not consecutively  as held in the cases of Christopher Dorizo v The Republic SC CI'Appeal 15of 2008 and ROlldy Lenclume  v Tile Republic Criminal Appeal SeA 3212013.

[5]         This Court would therefore proceed to vary the order of the learned Magistrate and make order that the terms of 4 years imprisonment and 3 years imprisonment imposed on Counts 1 and 2  respectively  fun  concurrently  and not  consecutively.  Therefore  in total  the Appellant would serve a term of 4 years imprisonment.

[6]       A  copy  of  this  order  to  be served  on  the  Superintendent   of  Prisons   and  his  warrant  of commitment   adjusted  accordingly.



Signed,  dated and delivered  at Ile du Port on  11th November   2016




M Burhan

Judge of the Supreme Court