By IANS
Auckland : New Zealand’s Commerce Commission Wednesday overturned the discharge without conviction of Naresh Shukla, director of 230 Marua Ltd., a leather furniture company in Auckland.
Earlier, the leather furniture company had been fined New Zealand $36,000 (about $27,000) plus costs over misleading claims about the sale price of furniture.
In June 2007, Shukla and his company 230 Marua Ltd. each pleaded guilty in the Auckland District Court to six charges of breaching the Fair Trading Act relating to advertising furniture as being on sale when the price was the same as before, and claiming that the leather lounge suites on sale for $3,000 were sold by other retailers for $6,000 when this was not correct.
While the company was fined, Shukla was discharged without conviction on the basis that his overseas travel for business may be unduly hampered by a conviction.
The Auckland District Court judge felt the consequences of a conviction would be out of proportion to the gravity of Shukla’s offence.
The Commerce Commission, New Zealand’s primary competition regulatory agency, appealed to the high court on the question of whether the judge was correct to grant the discharge without conviction, which may be ordered only if the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the offence.
On Nov 19, the matter was heard before Justice Baragwanath in the Auckland High Court. In his reserved judgement, which was released Wednesday, Justice Baragwanath found that the expert evidence established only a likelihood of nuisance to Shukla in that he would have to explain his conviction to foreign immigration authorities.
The judge added: “But it is the purpose of a sentence to sting and in a case such as the present to serve as a deterrent. While the fines against the company were substantial there was good reason to ensure that Shukla’s penalty was not limited to the reduced performance of his company.”
Accordingly, Shukla’s acquittal was set aside and he was convicted and discharged on all matters. This significant judgement in favour of the commission ensures that individuals are held accountable for any breach of the law.
In June 2006, clothing and outdoors retailer Kathmandu was fined NZ$28,000 for misleading claims in relation to items on sale.