Sarvansingh Kasory (Appellant) v Financial Crimes Commission and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0014

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

SARVANSINGH KASORY

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF MAURITIUS

FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION)

Issue

Did a delay of 7 years and 2 months between the hearing of an appeal and the delivery of the judgment by the Supreme Court of Mauritius violate the appellant’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, such that the appellant’s conviction should be quashed? Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius properly direct itself as to the essential elements of the offence of “obtaining gratification” under sections 7(1) and 83 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Facts

The appellant was a police officer charged with the offence of wilfully making use of his position as a public officer for gratification, in breach of sections 7(1) and 83 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant had solicited money from a person called Bisnautsing, who was on bail and required to report at the police station every Saturday. When Bisnautsing failed to attend, citing medical grounds for his absence, a police officer was sent to investigate the matter. Bisnautsing subsequently informed certain other police officers that the appellant had, in the meantime, solicited Rs 2000 from him, in return for the appellant ensuring that Bisnautsing’s bail money was not forfeited. The police officers set up a sting operation, in which they concealed themselves in Bisnautsing’s bathroom while the appellant attended at Bisnautsing’s house to collect the money. They exited the bathroom and saw the appellant drop a number of banknotes to the ground. They arrested him and charged him with the offence. The defence case was that Bisnautsing had contacted the appellant and told him that they were relatives, and that he was being harassed by the police. The appellant had verified that they were indeed relatives and attended at Bisnautsing’s house as a visit, at which point Bisnautsing had sought to bribe him. It was at that moment that the other officers, in an act of entrapment, appeared from the bathroom and arrested him. The alleged offence occurred on 19 August 2009. The trial started on 15 May 2013 and ended on 10 September 2015. The Intermediate Court of Mauritius, by a judgment dated 19 November 2015, found the appellant guilty of the offence and sentenced him, on 18 February 2016, to 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Mauritius against his conviction on 18 February 2016. The appeal was heard on 26 March 2018. The Supreme Court gave its judgment on 19 May 2025, holding that the appellant’s conviction was safe but that, on account of the delay, the 12-month sentence should be reduced to 6 months. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

20 February 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top