1

Examination in chief of ASP DAWOODARRY by State Counsel Me Akil Ramdahen

Q:

Can you give a brief description of the facts?

A:

I have been deputed by the CP to resist the present application.

On the 20/01/16 an email containing terrorism threat was sent to Le Matinal
Newspaper from esundrun@india.com. The content of the mail is as follows : this is
not a warning but it will happen on Friday like everywhere Friday is our favourite day
especially in Port Louis Line Barracks, Port everywhere Passport Office and the
Airport.
The second part of the email is as follows vendredi 22 janvier Soondron pou
denonce contre LIraq dans Port Louis la cour, station la police pas pou chappe
malgre warning mo penser li ene mensonge mais zotte pas conner vendredi matin et
lapres midi. Nou pou remercier bon dieu quand Maurice pou detruire.

Q:

Anything else on the facts of the case?

A:

The investigation has revealed the person behind the email is Applicant. The
investigation also reveals that he is in control of many technological devices that
have been used for the commission of the offence.

Q:

You have been deputed by CP to resist the present application?

A:

Yes

Q:

What are the grounds of objection?

G1:

Interfering with witnesses and tampering of evidence.

G2:

For the Applicant own security.

G3:

To preserve public order.

Q:

Can you substantiate the grounds of objection?

G1

Interfering with witnesses and tampering with evidence.

This case is highly sensitive in nature and has international ramification.
Technological devices used for the commission of the offence are located in many
jurisdictions. The investigation has also revealed that Applicant is the head or the
king pin of a network, well established network where there are other accused who
are well versed in technology that are involved.
The fact that there are several technological devices located in several jurisdictions
these devices need to be secured by the police and the other accused need to be
arrested by police. Moreover, Applicant is himself an IT Specialist having a mastery
of more than 3 operating system, Linux is one of them. According to IT expert
someone who

2
ATS:

Defence Counsel informs Court that witness should refrain from giving hearsay
opinion evidence.

A:

The police strongly believe that if Applicant is released he will tamper with evidence
i.e evidence that are situated not only in Mauritius but also abroad. Given the fact
that Applicant is an IT specialist he can remotely with the help of internet get access
to these evidences and tamper with it.
The fact that Applicant is provisionally charged under POTA and carried out severe
penalty to the police strongly believe that applicant will make himself avail to all
means to tamper with other incriminating digital evidence and interfere with other
confident who are still at large.
We have other witnesses who have not been cautioned so far by the police. The
police strongly believe that if Applicant is released on bail he will feel tempted to
persuade these witnesses to give evidence against him.

Q:

Can you inform the court what has been done in regard of the enquiry for Applicant?

A:

Only a search has been carried out at the place of Applicant secured some
technological devices. The involvement of Applicant in the case hasnt been checked
upto now. The technological devices secured at his place and in a Cyber Caf have
not yet been examined.

Q:

Can you give examples of those technological devices?

A:

Laptops, CPUs, Mobile phones, pen drives which have been secured and not yet
examined.

Q:

So far in respect of Applicant only search has been carried out at his place and place
of work?

A:

Yes.

Q:

Anything else to add in respect of the fact?

A:

This is a highly sensitive case and all details need to be minutiously examined, check
and re-check. The police strongly believe that if Applicant is released, as an IT
specialist he can try by all means to tamper with other digital evidence.

Q:

Ground 2; Can you elaborate on Ground 2?

A:

For his own security. when the mail was sent on 20/01/16 to Le Matinal Newspaper
and other institutions this was reported in the media in public domain. the mail
instilled a fear of insecurity and panick the mind of Mauritian citizen. when the mail
was published on the press and internet there were many bloggers commenting on
the articles. The blogs have revealed that many of the comments were very adverse
against Applicant. The police strongly believe that if Applicant is released any
member of the public can put his life at stake. Thus for his own security Applicant
shouldnt be released on bail.

Q:

What do you mean by adverse comments?

3
A:

All written press are on the internet- all the articles of the press.

ATS:

Defence Counsel states that there is objection for witness to give hearsay evidence
unless he can give an example on which newspaper and on which date.

A:

The public were not agreeable to the allegedly action done by Applicant by sending
the mail and instilling fear in the mind of the citizen.

Q:

Ground 3; can you elaborate on ground 3?

A:

Mauritius is well known for being a peaceful country. Following the said terrorist
threat the police had to mobilize the entire organisation to organise an integrity
vigilance all around the country and in different key point areas as mentioned in the
mail prevalence of peace and security in the country.
As I said earlier applicant is an IT specialist having mastery of different operating
system the moreso internet is easily accessible to almost everybody in Mauritius,
therefore the police strongly believe that if Applicant is released on bail he can
directly or indirectly send other mail of such types which was sent on 20/01/16,
causing fear in the mind of Mauritian Citizen. The nick name of Applicant is Iss .

Q:

What do you mean?

A:

In the name of Applicant, have is Iss Sookun.

Q:

How did you find out?

A:

Through our investigation. The email has been read as part of the email address
from which the mail has been sent. The investigation has also revealed that the
incriminating email has been sent from Mauritius through a proxy server through
Germany. Applicant is an IT expert, he doesnt need to go to cyber caf to send the
email; he can access it remotely from computer system from other places. Given the
current situation previously in the world as current terrorism the public peace can be
easily disrupted when faced with such type of threat.

Q:

Anything else?

A:

The enquiry is not yet completed, there are other accused who are still at large, other
technological devices that need to be secured and examined. The fact that internet is
easily accessible, the applicant can if released can manipulate with all evidence.

Q:

Applicant has a clean record?

A:

Yes

Q:

Was applicant on bail for any other offences?

A:

No

Cross Examination of ASP Dawoodarry as to Nature of Evidence Mr Erickson

Mooneapillay

4
Q:

Is police carrying out enquiry with diligence?

A:

Yes

Q:

You are not neglecting on any aspect of the enquiry?

A:

No

Q:

Is this the copy you communicated to counsel?

A:

Yes

Q:

What is hand written on the back of the doc in your hand?

A:

Early stage of enquiry. I apologise as this wasnt done on purpose.

Q:

This is what you said details are being minutiously checked?

A:

I was referring to the enquiry

Q:

You said that the nickname of Applicant is Iss?

A:

Yes

Q:

Is it Ish or is it Iss?

A:

Our enquiry revealed Iss

Q:

Are you aware officer that Applicant is affectionately called Ishwan ?

A:

No

Q:

Thereby his nickname Ish ?

A:

Not aware.

Q:

You said that part of the email contained Iss Can you show this to the court?

A:

No

Q:

Which part of the email contains Iss ?

A:

The sender name it is not in the document which is in possession of counsel.

Q:

What are the other parts of the email?

A:

I cant reveal the details of the police investigation.

Q:

Iss refers to Islamic State?

A:

It may be Yes, it may be No, the investigation is still on going.

Q:

Who is the complainant in this case?

A:

This is a very sensitive investigation I cant reveal.

5
ATS:

Defence Counsel refers to complainant as Mr X as information cant be revealed.

A:

This is a sensitive case I cant reveal all the facts of the case.

Q:

You have revealed that there was an email sent on 20/01/16?

A:

Yes

Q:

Was complaint made soon after this email?

A:

I cant reveal anything which can tamper the enquiry of the police.

Q:

How many emails were sent?

A:

I cant reveal as this would be detrimental to the enquiry of the police.

Q:

Have you investigated the whereabouts of the applicant on 20/01/16?

A:

I wouldnt reveal to the court what has been done so far but everything has been
checked minutiously and police is still verifying and counter-verifying all the details
which are in our presence.

Q:

The premises have been checked?

A:

Yes

Q:

Nothing incriminating found?

A:

The forensic devices found at the place of Applicant has not been examined.

Q:

Apart from the technological devices did you secure any other alleged incriminating
evidence?

A:

The technological devices have not yet been examined thus I cannot answer.

Q:

The work place of Applicant already searched?

A:

No

Q:

Where is it?

A:

Cyber Caf at the Lake Point Building Curepipe.

Q:

It is his work place?

A:

Applicant is the owner and director of the company that own this cyber caf

Q:

Is this his work place?

A:

The cyber caf is owned by Applicant.

Q:

Where is his work place, can you reveal same?

A:

Applicant is the owner of this cyber caf as our enquiry has revealed.

6
Q:

Are you aware that Applicant works as a Linux System administrator at La

Sentinelle?

A:

May be.

Q:

You are not sure?

A:

Yes Im Sure

Q:

Why did you use May be ?

A:

I withdraw I apologise.

Q:

Have the employees at the cyber caf been brought in for enquiry?

A:

I cant reveal.

ATS:

Defence Counsel Mr Teeluckdharry states that witness has to answer questions and
cannot refuse to answer same as he is compellable and no law not even POTA
exempts an enquiring officer from answering questions in cross-examination and that
there is equality before the law.

Q:

Are you aware that Applicant has passed on the business of cyber caf to one
Guneshwar Sooklall?

A:

I am not aware

Q:

Have you asked the question to Applicant or co-accused Sooklall?

A:

We are only at an early stage of enquiry no question put to Applicant so far.

Q:

You are aware that Applicant was the owner of the cyber caf?

A:

Yes from documentary evidence

Q:

Applicant is working at Media Group La Sentinelle?

A:

Yes

ATS Cross Examination of ASP Dawoodarry as to the Grounds of Objection by

Leading Counsel Mr Sanjeev Teeluckdharry
Q:

You are the main Enquiring Officer in this case?

A:

Yes

Q:

The email was sent on 20/016. When was the declaration given as to the sending of
the email?

A:

Before 20/01/16

Q:

Before 20/01/16 you got a declarant who made a declaration??

7
A:

Yes

Q:

Do you confirm?

A:

Yes.

Q:

How many persons have been interviewed?

A:

Some persons have been interviewed

Q:

You dont know the figures? You can count on your fingers.

A:

If I reveal the figure, Applicant will have an idea.

Q:

When was the Applicant arrested?

A:

On Saturday

Q:

At what time?

A:

At around 18 :00 hrs

Q:

My instruction is that he was arrested at around 16:30 hrs at his place?

A:

May be

Q:

He was brought to line barracks at 17:30 hrs?

A:

No around 18:00 hrs

Q:

This is a sensitive case, a high profile case and a high voltage inquiry has started?

A:

Yes

Q:

You said everything is done diligently and what you said minutiously?

A:

Yes

Q:

How long was he detained at line barracks?

A:

I need to check.

Q:

My instruction is that he was detained upto 8 hrs and his counsel was present?

A:

I cant say

Q:

The Applicant wasnt interviewed, no exhibits was shown to him, no charge was put
to him?

A:

An entry was inserted in Diary Book of CCID and Applicant was informed of the
reason for his arrest and the charge levelled against him. And with agreement of
Applicants counsel on that particular night we decided to postpone the interview of
Applicant.

8
Q:

My instruction is that the entry was inserted at about 1:00 am on 24/1/16 prior to
bringing him to be detained at Riv des Anguilles Police Station?

A:

May be

Q:

That is after 7 8 hrs of detention?

A:

Yes, this is a sensitive enquiry, everything obtained were minutiously examined. It

takes time. the police need to have all evidence before recording the statement.

Q:

When you arrested the Applicant you had no evidence??

A:

We had all the emails and evidence.

Q:

You brought the Applicant then informed him of his arrest?

A:

When Applicant was arrested he was informed.

Q:

On 23/01/16 to 24/01/16 no statement was recorded under caution for applicant

notwithstanding that his counsel was present?

A:

Yes when Applicant was arrested the only police cell available was at Riv. des
Anguilles.

Q:

The Applicant voluntarily remitted 21 items, technological devices including his

mobile phone, his laptops and his computers to the police?

A:

I cant say 21 but Applicant voluntarily remitted those devices to the police.

Q:

Applicant has a fixed place of abode and you went there?

A:

I didnt go there.

Q:

Applicant has a fixed place of abode?

A:

Yes

Q:

An email was sent on 20/01/16?

A:

Yes

Q:

The place it was sent from?

A:

Cyber caf in Curepipe.

Q:

Police have secured computers from Indra Cyber Caf which are in safe custody of
police?

A:

Yes

Q:

All the books and records were secured at the cyber caf?

A:

No, only the attendance book of the employees was secured.

Q:

This cyber caf is managed by one Sooklall?

9
A:

I dont know

Q:

Are there CCTV at Lake point?

A:

No

Q:

The cyber caf is a place where people, members of the public use computers and
internet?

A:

Yes

Q:

Upon a payment a receipt is issued?

A:

No

Q:

Applicant works at La Sentinelle?

A:

Yes

Q:

You didnt enquire whether Applicant was at his place of work?

A:

No

Q:

Where was the Applicant at the material time?

A:

I cant say.

Q:

Things secured from the Applicant are in possession of the police?

A:

Yes

Q:

Things secured from the Applicant are in safe custody of the police, near the coffres?

A:

Yes

Q:

The IT Unit have to examine the exhibits.

A:

Yes

Q:

Between 6.00 p.m of 23/1/16 as to-date no search items have been sent to IT Unit
for examination?

A:

Yes

Q:

You dont know when you will send same for examination?

A:

In due course, we are awaiting for a judges order.

Q:

A judges order, is not necessary as the Applicant has informed police that that he
consents that you verify his phone and his laptops and his computers in his
presence?

A:

We didnt put this question to Applicant.

Q:

Interfere with witnesses, can you say who are the witnesses?

10
A:

I cant reveal as this is sensitive case.

Q:

Are you aware who are the witnesses?

A:

Some yes, some are not yet known, who may well be known.

Q:

You have no evidence that the Applicant has ever tried to interfere with any witness?

A:

No as he was in police cell.

Q:

In the past he didnt interfere with witnesses?

A:

No

Q:

For his own security, he needs to be detained, but till when?

A:

Until the completion of enquiry

Q:

When will the enquiry be completed? When will he be tried?

A:

I cannot say

Q:

Nothing adverse that has been reported by the family members, relatives or friends
that there been any threat against them or the Applicant ?

A:

No. Applicant was in police custody. Press articles were fully examined by police and
we have noticed that there are many comments against Applicant. Citizen of this
country are not happy.

Q:

Any adverse comment in the press or media, can you show on which press, on which
date?

A:

No it is in public domain.

Q:

You have not brought anything to show to Court and whatever you are saying cannot
be verified?

A:

No.

Q:

For public order and public peace, the Applicant must be detained, till when?

A:

Yes

Q:

For how long,

A:

Until completion of enquiry

Q:

As to-date, nothing has been reported as threat to public order or peace?

A:

No, however police strongly believe that if Applicant is released, he can send those
mails.

Q.

Have you seen riots or public disorder or violence whenever the Applicant has
appeared before Court today or on the day before?

11
A:

No. I cant say

Q:

On 20/1 , 21/1 , 22/1 there has been no disorder, no riot?

A:

No

Q:

In your experience have been you been to court when outside Courtroom, members
of the public are angry and shouting to cause harm to a suspect or with banners ?

A:

Yes on several other occasions, but I dont know. When I entered Court, there was
no disorder.

Q:

Were there hostile crowds, people with banners outside the court shouting to cause
harm to Applicant?

A:

I cant say

Q:

The Applicant has appeared before Court on 3 occasions?

A:

Yes on 3 occasions.

Q:

Did you record any defence statement from Mr Sooklall as to-date?

A:

Not yet

Q:

Applicant has allegedly sent an email?

A:

Yes but police is contemplating other charges.

Q:

If in the provisional charge, the police says that he has knowingly facilitated one
Sooklall to send emails? What do you have to say? These are two different versions?

A:

Yes.

Q:

The co-accused is in police custody?

A:

Yes

Q:

The email is in your custody?

A:

Yes

Q:

There is no impediment for you to examine the exhibits that have been handed over
to you by the Applicant?

A:

We have to put the question to Applicant whether he is agreeable to verify the

device, police is contemplating to arrest other people and to see other devices.

Q:

You dont know when this will be done, it may be this year, next year or next decade?

A:

No this is a sensitive case when several jurisdictions are involved.

12