clr/1962/1962_1_225.pdf

(2)As there are too many ofthese cases wetake theview that the sentences should be imprisonment.

(3)The terms of Imprisonment now imposed would have been much heavier but for the reimbursement made, al­ though too much credit should net be given as there was a bond andthe bondsmen would probably have had t o make good the defalcation, at least In part. Per curiam : It is quite possible that in future cases, where the lawpermits and unless this offence ceases t o be as common as it is now, we shall feel called upon to impose substantially longer terms of imprisonment. Appeal allowed. Penalties imposed set aside in respect of counts 2to count 9 both inclusive, and terms of one and twoyears' imprison­ ment. substituted therefor to run concurrently. 225 GENERAL 1962 Sept. 28 T i l l AfTORNhV(«ΓΝΙ-RAI Γ. K Y R I A < OS Μ KMAH I M i l l Appeal againstsentenceby the Attorney-Generalof theRepublic. The respondent was convicted on the 16/7/62 at the District-Court-of Famagusta .(CY. Case No..3082/62) on 8 counts of the offence of fiaudulent false accounting contrary lo s.313(

1. c)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Kourns. D.J. to pay a total amount of £93 fine. V. Aziz for the appellant. N. Antonion for the respondent. Thejudgment of the Court was delivered by :— WILSON, P. : This is an appeal by the Attorney-Gene­ ral against the sentence imposed in the District Court of Famagusta on July 16, 1962 after the accused pleaded guilty to 8 charges of fraudulent accounting contrary to. section 313(
2. b)and (
3. c)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154. Upon the first count of stealing by clerk contrar> lo sections 262 and 268 of the Criminal Code, the accused was discharged and no evidence was offered. In respect of the fraudulent accounting the Court im­ posed fines varying from £10 to £15, according to the nature of the count. The conclusion expressed .by the learned trial judge that this is a very serious type of offence is concurred by this Court but we are also of the opinion that fines are not ade­ quate penalties. We have not overlooked the fact that the accused has made reimbursement. Nevertheless there are still too many of these cases and we take the view in this case that there must be sentences of imprisonment. The terms we areabout to impose would have been much heavier but for the particular facts of this case, in which we include, of course the reimbursement which has been made, although not too much credit should be given because there was a bond and the bondsmen would probably have had to make good the defal­ cation, at least in part. It is quite possible that in future cases, where the Lawpermits, and unless this offence ceases to be as common as it is now, we shall feel called upon to impose substantially longer terms of imprisonment than we are going to impose this iime. 226 We, therefore, set aside the penalties imposed on the accused in respect of counts 2 to count 9, both inclusive, and substitute the following : 'Τ,^ΝΤΑΓ' γ Count 2 : A term of one year's imprisonment KYMAKW Count 3 : A term of two years' imprisonment Count 4 : A term of two years' imprisonment Count 5 : A term of one year's imprisonment Count 6 : A term of two years' imprisonment Count 7 : A term of one year's imprisonment Count 8 : A term of one year's imprisonment Count 9 : A term of one year's imprisonment All terms to beconcurrent. Appealallowed. 227 e-1962·» — Ml( HAM. ITIIM Wilson. I».