Datasets:
CaseNo
stringlengths 6
242
⌀ | Parties
stringlengths 19
7.97k
⌀ | KeyWord
stringlengths 1
6.94k
⌀ | DateOfAP
stringlengths 10
10
| Judge
stringlengths 8
413
⌀ | Document
stringlengths 114
114
⌀ | Document_Text
stringlengths 131
486k
⌀ | Text_Len
float64 131
486k
⌀ | Text_Ext_Method
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RA-28PW-4-05/2023 | PEMOHON OOI LEE WEI (A contributory of the Respondent) RESPONDEN HUP HUAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD PENCELAH PECCA LEATHER SDN BHD | Permohonan Interlokutari oleh Pelikuidasi Syarikat yang telah digulung untuk mendapatkan kebenaran memfailkan satu afidavit dan untuk Mahkamah menerima pakai afidavit tersebut dan seterusnya untuk pelikuidasi memfailkan afidavit lanjutan berdasarkan penemuan terkini berkenaan isu pertikaian - Mahkamah telah menolak permohonan tersebut. Pelikuidasi telah memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut - Sementara rayuan tersebut didengarkan dan diputuskan di Mahkamah Rayuan, Mahkamah ini, setelah mendengar kesemua pihak telah membenarkan permohonan oleh pihak pencelah dan kes tersebut telah dilupuskan - Oleh itu, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa rayuan tersebut telah menjadi akademik. | 09/02/2024 | YA Dr Arik Sanusi Bin Yeop Johari | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8337a223-6de0-4e85-82e3-2dc40f743ef5&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - DRAFT GOJ HUP HUAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD v. PECCA LEATHER SDN BHD Another
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KANGAR
IN THE STATE OF PERLIS, MALAYSIA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
COMPANIES WINDING -UP NO RA-28NCC-4-03/2022
POST COMPANIES (WINDING UP) APPLICATION NO.: RA-28PW-4-05/2023
(COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO.:RA-28NCC-4-03/2022)
In the matter of sections 465 (1)(e), and
466(1)(a), 471, 492, 492 and 494 of the
Companies Act, 2016,
And
In the matter of HUP HUAT
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN.
BHD. (Company No.783563-M) (In
Liquidation),
And
In the matter of the Companies (Winding-
Up) Rules 1972,
And
In the matter of Ooi Lee Wei (NRIC : No.:
770220-09-5197), the Applicant
09/02/2024 12:30:38
RA-28PW-4-05/2023 Kand. 105
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
BETWEEN
PECCA LEATHER SDN BHD ...... PETITIONER
AND
HUP HUAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD (IN
LIQUIDATION)
(Company No: 783563-M) …… RESPONDENT
AND
OOI LEE WEI
(NRIC NO. 770220-09-5197) …… APPLICANT
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an appeal by the Liquidator of the Respondent, Hup Huat
Construction and Engineering Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) against the decision
of this Court in dismissing the Liquidator’s interlocutory application in Forms
of Summons (Liquidator’s Application to admit Enclosure 50, Affidavit of
Leong Ying Hoe and to seek leave to file further Affidavit) in Enclosure 55.
[2] The Applicant in this case is a contributory and one of the
shareholders of the Respondent, namely Hup Huat Construction and
Engineering Sdn Bhd.
[3] The Liquidator on the other hand is the private liquidator of Hup Huat
Construction and Engineering Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) appointed by this
Court by Winding-Up Order dated 2/3/2023.
[4] Vide an Amended Form of Summons in Enclosure 11, the Applicant
seeks for the following orders –
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
(a) that Ooi Lee Wei (NRIC No: 770220-09-5197) be granted with
leave to intervene and proceed with this application filed herein,
if necessary;
(b) that a Consent Judgment to be entered to stay the Order for
Winding Up by the Court dated 2.3.2023;
(c) that no order as to costs; and
(d) such other and/or further reliefs this Honourable Court deems
just and fair.
[5] Pending the hearing of the main suit in Enclosure 11, on 13/9/2023,
the Liquidator filed the Liquidator’s Application in Enclosure 55 for the
following orders –
(a) that leave is to be granted in favour of the Liquidator to
regularize the filing of the Affidavit of Leong Ying Hoe duly
affirmed on 04.09.2023 (Enclosure 50) which was filed under
Enclosure 18 (Liquidator’s Application for Stay of Proceedings)
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
vide Post Companies (Winding Up) Application No.: RA-28PW-
4-05/2023;
(b) that this Honourable Court admits Affidavit of Leong Ying Hoe
duly affirmed on 04.09.2023 (Enclosure 50) to be taken into
consideration for Enclosure 18 (Liquidator’s Application for Stay
of Proceedings) vide Post Companies (Winding Up) Application
No.: RA-28PW-4- 05/2023;
(c) that this Honourable Court allows and admits Affidavit of Leong
Ying Hoe duly affirmed on 04.09.2023 (Enclosure 50) to be
taken into consideration for Enclosure 1 and/or 11 (Applicant’s
Application to Stay Winding Up Order) vide Post Companies
(Winding Up) Application No.: RA-28PW-4-05/2023;
(d) that leave is also granted to the Liquidator to file a further
Affidavit to state the latest discovery and development of facts
pertaining to the matter;
(e) that the costs for this application is to be cost in the cause; and
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
(f) such further and/or other reliefs or orders as the Court deems fit
and proper.
[6] The Applicant and the Petitioner had objected to Enclosure 55. After
hearing all parties, on 5/10/2023, this Court had dismissed Enclosure 55
with costs in the cause as there is no merits in the Liquidator’s Application.
[7] Dissatisfied with the decision of this Court, the Liquidator had
appealed against the said decision.
[8] However, pending the hearing and disposal of the Liquidator’s
appeal, upon hearing all parties on 11/1/2024, this Court had allowed
Enclosure 11 (the main suit) for the following terms and conditions –
“1. Ooi Lee Wei (NRIC No: 770220-09-5197) be granted with leave
to intervene and proceed with this application filed herein;
2. the Winding Up Order dated 02.03.2023 granted by this Court
against the Respondent (“Winding Up Order”) shall be stayed
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
until 11.04.2024 pursuant to Section 492 of the Companies Act
2016, subject to the following conditions;
(1) the terms of the draft Consent Order (exhibit “OLW-4” of
Enclosure 2) be amended and entered as follows:
(2) the Respondent shall pay or the Applicant shall cause the
Respondent to pay the Petitioner a total sum of
RM654,741.58 being the full and final settlement sum
(“Settlement Sum”) in one lump-sum payment by way of a
cheque within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order;
(3) the payment of the Settlement Sum shall be secured by
the Applicant’s own property with an address at No. 16,
Jalan Ria, Taman Pertama, 01000 Kangar, Perlis
(“Property”) as collateral for the payment and a personal
guarantee by the Applicant, Mr. Ooi Lee Wei;
(4) the Respondent shall hand-over or the Applicant shall
cause the Respondent to hand-over all the following
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
documents within thirty (30) days from the date of this
Order;
a. the cheque stated at paragraph (1) above in the
sum of RM654,741.58; and
b. the duly signed and stamped “Director’s Irrevocable
Personal Guarantee & Indemnity”;
(5) the Petitioner shall be entitled to enter a private caveat in
respect of the Property for the purpose as stated at
paragraph (2) above;
(6) the management and control of the Respondent be
granted to the Applicant from the date of this Order until
11.4.2024;
(7) the Applicant be allowed to operate the Respondent’s
current bank account no. 3141756216 with Public Bank
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
Berhad at Kangar, Perlis from the date of this Order until
11.4.2024;
(8) in the event of default on any of the payment terms and/or
breach of any of the terms and conditions set out herein:
a. the Petitioner shall be entitled to take necessary
steps to recover any amount due and owing to the
Petitioner; and
b. any stay of the Winding Up Order shall immediately
be ceased and/or terminated whereupon the
Winding Up Order shall be reinstated and the
Liquidator be allowed to execute his duties pursuant
to the Winding Up Order;
(9) upon clearance of the payment of RM654,741.58, the
Petitioner shall have no objection for the Applicant or the
Contributory of the Respondent to apply for termination of
the Winding Up Order;
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
(10) a copy of the Order herein should be lodged with
Pendaftar Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia within thirty (30)
days from the date of this Order; and
3. No order as to costs.”.
[9] Since the main suit in Enclosure 11 has been disposed of by this
Court on 11/1/2024, this Court is of the view that the Liquidator’s appeal in
Enclosure 55 has become academic.
Dated : 7 February 2024
(DR. ARIK SANUSI BIN YEOP JOHARI)
Judge
High Court of Malaya, Kangar
The State of Perlis
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
The Solicitor’s –
The Applicant’s Solicitor:
Mr. Low Eu Thuan
(together with Ang Jinn Fenn)
Messrs. Cheong Wai Meng & Van Buerle
49, Lebuh Gereja
10200, Pulau Pinang
The Petitioner’s Solicitor:
Ms. Alane Neo
Messrs. YY Chin & Co
VO3-05-03, Designer Office VO3,
Lingkaran SV, Sunway Velocity,
55100 Kuala Lumpur
The Liquidator’s Solicitor:
Mr Tan Eng Keat
Messrs. Gan, Lee & Tan
Suite 13.03, Level 13
Menara IGB, Mid Valley City
Lingkaran Syed Putra
59200 Kuala Lumpur
S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 9,495 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-A71KJ-3-02/2023 | PLAINTIF Kerajaan Malaysia DEFENDAN ELAYN CHAN KAR YEE | running down case - liability set at 100% against the Defendants - however Plaintiff is only awarded nominal sum as they failed to prove their claim for special damages. | 09/02/2024 | Puan Shairil Farhana Binti Ruslan | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4d27f85c-07fa-43fe-ac9e-ed0da09d84a3&Inline=true |
1
IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR
CIVIL SUIT NO.: WA-A71KJ-3-02/2023
BETWEEN
GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
…PLAINTIFF
AND
ELAYN CHAN KAR YEE …DEFENDANT
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
A. BACKGROUND
1. The Plaintiff’s suit arise from a running down incident involving the Plaintiff’s
motorcycle (WQG 7765) that was ridden by Effandi Bin Malek and the Defendant’s
motorcar (WA 2963 A) that had occurred on 26.9.2017 at around 8.45am. The
accident had occurred while Effandi was riding along the Mex Highway, just after
passing the Salak South toll. While he was riding on the leftmost lane, suddenly the
Defendant’s motorcar had hit the Plaintiff’s motorcycle from the right. As a result, the
Plaintiff’s motorcycle had suffered damages. Plaintiff is now claiming for damages for
the cost of repairs for the motorcycle.
09/02/2024 09:57:57
WA-A71KJ-3-02/2023 Kand. 40
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
2. After 3 days of trial and after hearing the submissions from both parties, and on
the balance of probabilities, this Court decided to allow a portion of the Plaintiff’s claims
with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff.
3. To be specific, this Court finds that the Defendant is to be held 100% liable for
negligently causing the accident however this Court only allows a nominal sum of
RM10.00 of damages to the Plaintiffs.
4. Not satisfied with this Court’s decision, Plaintiff has now filed a Notice of Appeal
against this Court’s decision on the issue of quantum (only) on 20.12.2023. Here are
this Court’s grounds of decision on the issue of quantum.
5. At trial, Plaintiff had called a total of 5 witnesses while the Defendant did not
call any witnesses. The list of witnesses are as follows;
Name of Witness Role Label Witness
Statement
Effandi Bin Abd Malek Rider to Plaintiff’s
motorcycle
SP1 PSSP1
Inspector Muhammad Fauzi B.
Ahmad Fuaat
Investigating
Officer
SP2 PSSP2
Shahrinniswan Bin Abd
Rahman
Representative
from Bahagian
Logistik
SP3 PSS3
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Pengangkutan
(Teknikal), IPKKL
Maizatul Hafiza Binti
Mohamad
Representative
from Finance
Unit, IPKKL
SP4 PSSP4
Mohamad Zamri Bin Idris Director of
Gerbang Cahaya
Resources SDn
Bhd
SP5 PSSP5
B. THIS COURT’S GROUNDS OF DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF QUANTUM
6. In this suit, the Plaintiff claimed for the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s motorcycle
which the Plaintiff claims amounted to RM18,310.00. After hearing all the testimonies
from the witnesses at trial and after perusing through all the documentary evidences
adduced, this Court finds at the Plaintiff had failed to prove succinctly how much was
the cost of repairs, what was the basis of them claiming that amount and whether or
not the motorcycle was indeed repaired as specified. This inadequacy makes it
impossible for the Court to grant the whole amount as pleaded by the Plaintiff.
7. However, taking into account that the Defendant WAS liable for causing the
accident, but it is just a failure on the part of the Plaintiff in proving the special damages
that they had incurred, this Court hereby grants a nominal award of RM10.00 to the
Plaintiff.
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
8. Before this Court goes into the basis of this Court’s decision on the issue of
quantum, I will briefly state the law with regards to special damages. It is an
established principle of law where special damages is to be pleaded specifically and
proven strictly. Reference is made to the case of Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood
[1983] 2 MLJ 324 in where the Federal Court Judge, His Lordship Syed Agil Barakbah
(as he was then) said as follows :
“It is a well-established principle that special damages in contrast to general
damages have to be specifically pleaded and strictly proven. They are
recoverable only where they can be included in the proper measure of damages
and are not too remote (see Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th edition, volume 11
page 218 [ara 386). That in our view is the cardinal principle adopted by all
courts both in England and this country. The same principle was adopted by
Ong Hock Thye, FJ (as he then was) in Yee Hup Transport & Co and Anor v
Wong Kong [1967] 2 MLJ 93 which was an appeal on quantum of damages.
Quoting an excerpt from the judgment of Wilmer LJ in Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 1
WLR 991; [1963] 2 All ER 879 he held that general damages should not be
awarded as though they were special damages properly pleaded and proved.
Similiarly Chong Swee Pian [1980] 1 MLJ 216 applied the principle in Ilkiw v
Samuels (supra) that special damages if pleases as in that case could be
recovered. The principle was also adopted by Mohamed Azmi, J (as he then
was) in Sam Wun Hoong v Kader Ibramshah [1981] 1 MLJ 295 in the Federal
Court.
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
The reason that special damages have to be specifically pleaded is to comply
with its object which is to crystallise the issue and to enable both parties to
prepare for trial (per Edmund Davies, LJ in Domsalla v Barr [1969] 1 WLR 630,
635. In special damages claims the exact loss must be pleaded where the
precise amount of item of damages has been become clear before the trial
either because it has already occurred and so become crystallised or because
it can be measure with complete accuracy (MacGregor on Damages 14th
edition page 1012 para 1498). The purpose is to put the defendants on their
guard and tell them what they have to meet when the case comes on trial (per
Cotton, LJ in Phillips v Phillips (1878) 4 QBD 127,139”.
9. Refernce is also made to the book Fundamentals of Running Down And
Personal Injury Litigation where the author Jeyaseelan Anthony, at page 198-200 had
listed the 4 elements that had to be fulfilled in every claim for special damages :
“6.2 SPECIAL DAMAGES
[6.007] Four elements must be satisfied to constitute special damages:
1. It is a damage which is actually suffered before the trial.
2. It is capable of precise quantification.
3. It must be specifically pleaded in the statement of claim.
4. It must be proved either by receipts or some other evidence.”
10. At the forefront, this Court finds that the Plaintiff had failed to prove element 2
dan 4 as listed above. Among others, the basis for this Court’s decision on this issue
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
is due to the fact that the list of damages and/or damaged parts to the Plaintiff’s
motorcycle is not proven at trial.
11. Firstly, reference is made to paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim in which the
Plaintiff pleads as follows:
“6. Perlanggaran tersebut telah menyebabkan Motosikal Plaintif mengalami
kerosakan iaitu kangaroo bar kiri dan kanan bengkok, siren kiri dan kanan
pecah, lampu becon kiri dan kana pecah, cover set kiri dan kanan pecah
dan lain-lain kerosakan.”
12. Meanwhile, En Effandi Bin Abd Malek (SP1) who was the rider to the Plaintiff’s
motorcycle at the time of accident had reported the damages to the motorcycle in his
police report as follows:
“…Saya tidak dapat mengawal m/sikal lalu terbabas diibahu Lebuhraya MEX
tersebut. Kerosakan pada m/sikal kangaroo bar kiri dan kanan bengkok, siren
kiri dan kanan pecah, lampu beaco light kiri kanan pecah, cover set kiri dan
kanan pecah lain-lain kerosakan belum pasti…”
13. However, this Court began to notice a discrepancy as to which part of the
motorcycle is damaged exactly, when the two evidences above is cross-referred to the
statements of Encik Shahrinniswan Bin Abd Rahman from Bahagian Logistik IPKKL
(SP3) and Pn Mizatul Hafiza Binti Mohamad from the Finance Unit IPKKL (SP4).
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
14. In specific, reference is made to SP3's answer at question 6 of his Witness
Statement (PSSP3) where he had stated that the document Pesanan Kerajaan was
prepared to list out the repair works to be carried out on WQG7765. SP2 had also
stated the list of damaged parts to be windshield, RHS Cowl, LHS Cowl, FR RHS
Fireball, RR LHS Cowl and FR Upper Cowl. However, when SP3 is asked during
cross-examination, SP3 confirms that the following parts that were stated in the
Statement of Claim and in SP2’s police report, were not listed as the damaged parts
in the Pesanan Kerajaan :
a. Kangaroo bar (LH/RH);
b. Messenger box;
c. Siren (LH/RH);
d. Beacon light (LH);and
e. Coverset (LH/RH).
15. Similiarly, the witness Pn Mizatul Hafiza Binti Mohamad (SP4) also confirms
during cross-examination that there was no mention of any damage to parts such as
kangaroo bar, messenger box, etc. In fact, SP4 went a step further by agreeing to the
Defence counsel’s suggestion that there isn’t any list of damaged parts included in any
of the Government documents uploaded in the ePerolehan system. For the record, the
list of Government document extracted from the ePerolehan system is as follows:
a. Pesanan Kerajaan (P5);
b. Arahan Pembayaran (P6);
c. Invois (P7);
d. Pesanan Penghantaran (P8);and
e. Nota Penerimaan Bekalan / Perkhidmatan (P9).
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
16. With reference to the testimonies and evidences stated under paragraph 11
until 15 of this Ground of Judgment, this Court notes that there is no same testimony
or no same list adduced to explain what parts exactly of the motorcycle that needs to
be repaired/replaced. The list of damaged parts stated in the Statement of Claim,
report by SP1 differs from the testimonies given by SP3 and SP4.
17. On the issue of identification of damaged parts, this Court notes that the usual
practice in these cases is for the Plaintiff to call a witness from Bahagian Workshop,
Jabatan Kerja Raya whose task is to examine the damaged motorcycle and then
prepare a list of parts that needs to be repaired / replaced. This witness was not
present as a witness at trial. A copy of Borang/Senarai Kerosakan prepared by JKR
was also not allowed to be admitted as reference in this trial due to non-compliance to
pre-trial direction.
18. To counter this issue, the Plaintiff submits that a copy of the list of damaged
parts was also provided in the “Senarai Kerosakan” and quotation provided by the
workshop that had carried out the repair works, Gerbang Cahaya Resources Sdn Bhd.
However, both documents were not tendered in Court. En Mohamad Zamri Bin Idris,
a director of Gerbang Cahaya Resources Sdn Bhd, testified that his workshop had
indeed carried out repair works as per requested by the Plaintiff. However, he was
unable to tender a copy of the “Senarai Kerosakan” and quotation as his records were
destroyed due to flooding. SP5 was also unable to give an oral explanation what works
were carried out as the repair work had been carried out years ago.
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
19. Therefore, this Court finds that there was a failure on the Plaintiff to succinctly
prove what are the damaged parts that needs to be replaced / repaired in order for
them to be awarded damages to repair said parts.
20. Furthermore, this Court also notes that there is no breakdown of price for each
of the spare parts that is allegedly needed to repair/replace the damaged parts on the
motorcycle. What all of witness testimonies and the above Government documents
shows is at best, the total of the cost of repair works that had been done. But the
question of what spare parts, or what actual repair works that had been carried out on
the motorcycle, plus how much cost per part is left unanswered.
21. Since this Court is unable to determine what parts are damaged and are in need
of replacement / repair, how then will this Court determine how much the alleged
replacement / repair is to cost?
22. For the record, this Court is satisfied that some level of repair work had indeed
been carried out on the motorcycle (as stated by SP3, SP4 and SP5) and payment for
works done has also been paid out. However the issue that remains a mystery to this
Court is what repair works that had been done and whether the repair works or cost
of spare parts that were used in the repair works are reasonable and had been carried
out to the tee. No evidence or testimonies were adduced by Plaintiff that could
elucidate on this matter. Therefore, this Court is unable to grant the special damages
as pleaded by the Plaintiff.
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
23. Nevertheless putting aside the failure of the Plaintiff to sufficienly prove their
claim for special damages, considering the fact that this Court had found the
Defendants wholly liable for negligently causing the accident, this Court grants a sum
RM10.00 as nominal damages for the Plaintiff.
24. Overall on the balance of probabilities, this Court decides to allow a part of the
Plaintiff’s claims with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff.
Case Details
Magistrate : Shairil Farhana Binti Ruslan
Counsel for Plaintiff : Arina Azmin Binti Ahmad Marzuki, Federal Counsel
Counsel for Defendant : Faliq Faizal and Ralizah (PDK), Messrs Murali B. Pillai &
Associates
Date of Decision : 8th December 2023
Date of Ground of Decision : 7th February 2024
S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 14,576 | Tika 2.6.0 |
CB-62D-31-01/2024 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH AMINUDIN BIN AZIZ | PROSEDUR JENAYAH : Mengaku salah – sabitan ke atas 4 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-sama ada sabitan teratur.RAYUAN : Rayuan atas hukuman – memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan sendiri – kesalahan berulang – sama ada hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan. HUKUMAN : Hukuman di bawah seksyen 39C(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya – sama ada hukuman penjara dan sebatan melampau – sama ada mitigasi tertuduh telah dipertimbangkan. | 09/02/2024 | Tuan Haji Jamaludin Bin Haji Mat | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5029d421-baa8-42f1-80a1-792b0ae61075&Inline=true |
09/02/2024 14:47:54
CB-62D-31-01/2024 Kand. 9
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
ca—62D—31—u1/2024 Kand. 9
. ,0;/22:4 4-4‘ :4
DALAM MAHKAMAH sssvsu DI TEMERLOH.
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAYSIA
KES NO: cs—s2n.31.1/zrm
,~ DI ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAVA ...PENDAKWA
DAN
AMINUDDIN am AZIZ MTERTUDUH
KORUM: HAJI JAMALUDIN BIN HAJI MAT,
HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN 1.
TEMERLOH
TARIKH HIJKUMAN: 20 JANIJARI 2024
ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN
cannnw mu
N mapuxxaauxnaxncuvoan
mm Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm
FERMULAAN
1 Alasan penghakvmzn Inv dwsedlakan benkulan danpafla rayuan
Tenuduh yang musk herpuas hzn Ierhadap kepmusan says yang
5 mbenxan pada 24.1.2024 dx rnana saya (elem mensabI|ksn
Tenuuun an hawih Seklyen I5[1)(a) Am Dadah Berhallaya
1552 dan dvhukum pen] m salami a (man dx bawah soksyon
39C(1)(b) Aktu nmah Berbahaya 1952 dan dlperimahkan
memalzm pengawasan AADK selama 2 mum se\epas menmam
m hukuman m bawah semen :35 Am mush Eerbihaya 1952
2 Rayuan ada\ah (erhadap hukuman sahaja
3 Fenmih pemsmavaan ndak dnawakmkan
PERTUDUHAN
4 Fzda 2412024. Terludun le\ah mhadapkan ke Mahkamah
Sesyen Temerloh flengan perluduhan sepem benkut
gnaw >IVAV1AMI4A/Dwv!V>lALl nnm mam. H5: Page :
sw mupumaumxmvuan
-ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW 2. used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
1n
FAKTOR MITIGASI
24 D! sampmg nu says wga mempeflvmbangkan nInIgasITer\uduI1
Wa\au bzgaimanapun. saya max nampak sebarang alasan yang
rnunasabah mkemukakan bag: membenarkan Tenuduh Ierus
mengmangi kesmahan yang sama berulang xan.
25 Saya mendapau ml
barmem sama sexan
as: yang dvbenkan olsh Tenuduh max
FENGAKUAN SALAH
2s. saya jug: menganmu klva pengzkuan sa\ah Tenuduh yang le\ah
menyIma|kan masa din kaa plhak-pmak yang eembac
27 Walau bagarmanapun. pengakuan salah Tertuduh max amen
memadw vakmr mMigas1 yang kual da\am xeaaaan an mana
Tenuduh meming max mempunyal zpa—apz pemhelaan uka kes
nu dubmarakan
2a Mahkamah Km menganmu pendekalan yang sama sehagalmana
dalam kes TI: an Long 1/. Public Pm:-ecutor[2fl04] 4 cm 71 di
mane VA Mukhlar Swdm HMR menyatakan
'[1|Ammugh n 5 an zcoemafl Me n9waL1u>e|halan accused
pevwn —who pluds gmuy cu an uvledme wnn whmh he has been
chavged V snoum he awe/\ 3 msceunl an the senlzncethat wmm
cuzwv V7114 M. u
.y...Wmm yvzuln mum...
N mupuMauKAaxwcuvuan
ma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: dun-mm wa mum pm
mhatwlsu have been Imposed an Inn naahebeen comm: me:
a lnal‘ ye: mus ave m-pnnam aztoenhons la Hus aenemx mu:
mean the Mlermes was (he Dangerous Drugs Ad 1952 .2
exceanons In Ims me-
29. Mahkamah Im se¥an'uInya merujuk kes up u. Amtuma/im lshak
.5 saw Lagi [2013] 9 cm 559 m mama YA Mona Zawawl Safleh
HMR |e¥ah menzalwkan pandangannya sebagalmana bervkuc
‘K21!Tuuaxdapamvpenrkawkaneanawa kssalahanyann mm...
vs denaan mam adahh memvllun um K-uahhsn yang mums
yang belch meuglnum kasnlamatzn din kuentelaman nsgara
sen: xa..r..m. umum Dadamedah ausynnmn nebagal musuh
nomhovsilu nsgava man Kerinan had: lamm ma Jus\eru Ma
mahkamah memamhkan hukumnn yang nnvan mm um
vs Iesalahan mu dvxelankan melalm mum“ sebavm xenus.
sadan lemu Pfillmdungln ldwapmya mak dapzl mm"
mud. many mmzl Dalam kn mmam. samm. V pp
luupm) mzhknman msnegaskan
The many or sentence can my be lo Mlecl
zu Farhamenfs Inlenlmn mm mrmclrvn Var being m
Dnssesslnn at a large imnum no my lnlm av nmmmx-a
mummuslcommensumavnlmhnsamumxmlzlpassad
cm In: pecmmvam Much ale
:5 PESALAH TEGAR
an Says jug: mempemmbangkan vaknor bahaw: semen kal Im
bukanlzh kesalahan panama Terluduh Rekod sabman lampau
Tenuduh wet yang dlkemukakan dw Mzhkamah menulwkkan
(;cxmH1)2A >AM<AH\ul¢\Ifl1A1R .... mm
sw muvumauxmxkmuvuan
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
bahawa Tenuuun mernpunyal 4 sannan Ialu nagu kesamhan yang
sum:
31 Rekad sahnan lampau Tenudun IFS) menuruukkan banawa
s Tenuuun mempakan Desalan (agar, masm behml msaman masxh
nemm senk walaupun le\ah hemlang kall kelual masuk penjan.
Kebanyakan kesalahan yang auaxuxan ‘uga adalah barman
dengandadah
w 32 oxen yang dermkwany sewajamya Tenuduh dikanakan hukuman
yang ham
3: Berdasarkan kepada nas—nas an alas‘ saya berpuas nan hahawa
hukuman penjzra s Iahun yang dlkanakan olen Mahkamah Im
we adaml selan dengan kepuluszn Mahkamah masan m alas yang
mengnennam Mahkamah mengenakan hukuman yang heral nagx
keskes yang mehbalkan kepenimgan swam
TIADA RASA INSAF DAN EERTAUEAT
:4. Wa\aupun da1am mI|IgasInya, Terluduh menyatakan (e\ah kesal
flan msal, «exam kewakuannya menuruukkan sebaluknya
as Sekvvany: behau benar-benar msal. sudah lsnm hehau «max akzn
25 merlgulangw kesalahan yang same berwang kall
Mn,..¢..¢. mAI4\\,|)0w|v1AuL W... xrum Pagen
N muvumauxnaxwcuvuan
um Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m yaw .. mnuuny mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm
35 Mahkamah Im menquk Kes PP v. my Ah cneng [1973] 2 MLJ
me an mana YA Abdocl CaderH |e\ah manyaxakan sepem benkm
-rn. raipondafll also puls «mwm m m plea m mmgamn the
cm mat he u employed and suppons an aged mama and
fleobvomevs Ne should or course have ma-mm al ms belove
wmrmllmg the awevwes ma nnl nnev, he 1: m iacl nrenam
rvamshvp ansmn mm In wnsefluenues nl N5 awn 15!: mm :
we-An vederale mm x mm mxzulun plzmuusly In Lmserve m
m mmg. use um zn ulfnndal muuld not mm to exam 17!
names; any sympalhy on an Ipie dual by laklna ma: slance m
m. wmpeluuvs youm who kwea ms parents wnlh an are and men
vluaea m mmaanon that he was an crum-
z< KEPENTINGAN AwAM TERPELIHARA
37 saya percaya, kepemlngan awam akan Vebwh lelvelnhava uka
Tenuduh masmgkan danpada masyarakzt dalam sualu Iempuh
yang uaruang
3a Tempnh pememaraan yang paruang mg: amarapkan dapac
membanlu Terluduh unluk melupakan naps dadah yang mungkm
sudah memam dalah aagmg Tenuduh.
25 as Tempnh pemeruzvaan yang paruang mg: dmarapkan aapac
memutuskan mmungan Terluduh dengan rakarnakan
sepemenayan yang lam flan Tenuduh dapal men|a|Im program-
progvam pemuhhan dengan aman
can M. Wm. ». pa. u
N muvuxnaauxnaxkrcuvuan
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
an Sermga selepas menglkun program-prngram yang nalan dlsusun
semasa an penjarz nanll dzpat menglnsalkan Tenuauh flan
rnunben peming kepada Terluduh un|uk bermuhzsabah dun dan
s bsrubah Kepada ssarang insan yang Vebm baxk flan dapal
menwnggmkan dadah segenunnya.
41 saya juga bevharap behau menganmn peluang semasa manyaxanx
hukuman penjara unluk mempenayan pelbagal kemahxran
m banaeaan yang holeh mgunakan unmk mencan rezekv yang ha\a|
keuxa dubebaskan danpadz penyara nann
PELUANG MEMEAIKI DIRI
us 42 Semaga dengzn lempoh pemanyaman yang Vama ml rnarnben
peluang kspida Tenuduh un|uk nanman dan memperhalkl um
menpadl seovang wavganegara yang barguna dan menukav Cara
hmuu kepada yang Vebm hawk
2» 43. D. penjara ‘uga, Temmun berpeluang unwk hehjar Hmu-nmu
akadermk dan Hmu-Ilmu kemahxran kendm secara Ielsusun
bersarna pegawavpegawai yang berlauhah
44 Adam: dvharapkan, selepas mnanaskan ganpaaa peruara nancn
25 Tenuduh Wu mm mm a new leaf dan membebaskan dm
danpada najls dadah sens meruam seorang msan barn yang xemn
produknl, menyayangn dan dusayangv oleh anggma masyavakal
l!l>YV/B44 L M mm. swcwvynnvw. 1 mus
n mupuxmaumaxkrcuvuan
Nuns Snr1nVn:nhnrw\HI>e used m mm n. nrW\ruU|Y mm: dun-mm wa mum pm
RUMUSAN
45. D1 akmr anallsns saya berpendapal hukuman yang le\ah
s dumuhkan adalah menglkut Imdang—undang wa;ar dan
munasabah sens aemnpal flengan kesalahan yang dllakukan men
Terluduh
Benarikh pada sub. Fumuarl 2024.
Mamum-h Sesyen Temerlah,
Pan:-g Dam! Makmm.
(..,.m.,.,;. rl>ANA|A*4vDNvIWA1\Z 1:11 wm.....m men.
sw muvumauxnaxncuvuan
-ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
P Ik-Plluk:
Pendakwa Ray: diwa alell Puan TPR Wong Zhi Gian.
s P-mmnmoalun Pundlkwl Ruyl,
Temellnll.
En Ahmad Zahid bin Ahu Hashim dzri vaax mewa
.n...mm. |».v<u4\>4u>)>~|m~11 7-A1114 i:~munuus: mm
w muvumauxnaxncuvoan
-ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum pm
zu
vcxwuuunw
amuwa mmu Mm Ix HAKIBULAN oKmaE1<2n:3JAvI mam xuumn
ms TENGAH mm. azxrmnr on u-man nammm smsnm
mmvm wzmm mt, pmmr mnun mu. m mum meme
mm. on mum wmm mums rwuu mxmun. man numum
Mmuzmm Kumlm mm mwm Swami mmu RERBAHAVA mus
MOKPDHNE" my mmm Ȣw.;mm mu mum mm nu mm
nun MIILAKUKAN mu xssaumw DWAWAII sax mum um
mum seam-a.«u wsz mm mm: nmwummaawm szxsvm 3900
Ann uxc. sum. oumc/\ anznm snxsym mm mm own:
HLRHAHAVA ms:
HIIKIJMAN
um mswlr xcsumw nevmmm nmuxum paw/um SLLAMA
nwou 1l|7AK xuxmc nsmmuv my» mm u:nm um nnmuw mm
nmmmm umummn sum nmk mam mm 4;; ssrunw um
PENGAWASAN nmx mum zm-mu mm nmx MELEBIHA 2 msuw
PENGAKUAN
5 Perluduhan an alas lelah amacakan derlgzn Ierang dan piss
kepada Terluduh dalam Eahasa Malaysia yang mlahamx alen
Tanuduh.
6 Tarluuuh dengan sukarels mengaku bevsalah kc alas
perluduhan lersebul
zuznxwnn ........u=m......u I47/N14 :7-umnnssr Page]
sm muvumauxnaxmuvuau
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
1 Mahkamah se\erusnya menerangkan sum dan akrbat pengakuan
sedan lersebm dan pemnmkan hukuman yang baleh dlkenakan ks
alas Terluduh
5 e Terluduh memahaml penerangan Mahkamah dan mzsih
mengaku salah ke eras perluduhan‘ dan laham swan flan ax-nax
pengakuanrlyi nu
RINGKASAN FAKTA KES PENDAKWAAN
9 Selerusnya, Pegawal Fsndakwa |erpe\a;ar mengemukakan
nngkasan Vakta kes pzndakwaan
1n Rmgkasan izklz kes Ielah dmacakan aan unerangkan kepada
M Tenuaun me\aIuI jurubahasa Mahkzmah dan msankan sebagaw
new
11 Rmgkasan vakca kes kemumannya dwandakan sebagan eksmm
P1
10
EKSHIEIY-EKSHIEIT
12. Selerusnya‘ Twmbalan Pendakwa Rzya |erpe\z]zrmengemuKakan
ekshnhnekshxhxl seperli bankur
:5
(ap Mengkuang nepan No 346/2023 sehzgzx F2
(K7) Tnang Repon N1: 351 512023 sebagal P3
g.,.,..m. .....4...‘.m.~... 14m:v:4 sw<u)\Ixmz r. .
IN muvuxmaumaxwcuvuan
-um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
1:7 Lapovan palolagu sebagax P4 — dnuruukkan dan mam
(.1) 4 keplng gambav halo! min sabagax F5A»D - mmrwkkan flan
dlakul.
(e) Rekod Pusil Penaanaran Pemenayah wbzgar P6 —
s umacakan dan mam
RAVUAN TERTUEIUH
13 Mankamah setemsnya mendengar rayuin flanpada Tenudun
In
IA Terluduh me\alm peguam VBGK, da\am vayuannya menyaxakan
(a) on berusxa 52 lahun
my om bekena sebagaw buruh ladang dengan pendapalan
Rmuousenuxan
ws (c) on sudah berkzhwm, menanggung seovang men earn 5
nrang anak
(.1) Fengakuan salah le\ah umalkan masa dan kos pendakwaan
(e) OKTkasaIdan|nsa1serIaber[an] dakulangwkesalahanlagl
(r) Mahkamah penu wmbangi kepenungan awam dengan
zo kspanllngan on sendln dengan mengenakan hukuman
yang rmmma Kevana secara langsungnya pemara yang
rmruma akan benkan pengqaran dan peluang yang kedua
kepada 0K1 unzuk kemuau Kepada masyanaxax dalam
Keadian yang normal
(9; on memahnn hukumin pemara rmmma
;...»...v.. Awvnum/nnmlmuu mu. (wmAnMl§/ Fag-:5
IN muvumaumaxkmuvuan
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
HUJAH PEMBERATAN OLEN PEGAWAI FENDAKWA
15 Twmhalan F-‘endakwa Raya lerpelapr berhujzh
(a) Pnhun hukuman seumpal ks 3155 on.
(b) Kepermngan awam me\eb|m kepen||ngan on
(c) In: merupakan kesalahan kenma on d\ bawah 5 15(1) ADE
1952
(.1) Pnhon pemmhangkan Kekerapan kes a. bawah s. 390 ADE
1952 yang zaenaku dl Negev: Pahang
m (e) Pom-n hukuman mkna danpada Iankh (angkap 15102023
kerana on mreman darn lankh |angkap
SABITAN
vs 15. Setelah mendengar pengakuan sa\ah Yenudun (anpa syaral‘
menganalisa Vakla kes. meneml eksmbwt-eksmbul yang Celah
mxemuxaxan an hadapan Mahkamah‘ Mahkamah menenmz
pengakuan salah Terluduh ks alas pefluduhan dan mensahflkan
Temmuh sehagaumana penuduhan
HUKUMAN
17. Se|e\ah menimbang rayuan Terluduh‘ man pemberalzn
Twmhalarv Pandakwa Rays‘ Mahkamah menglmkum Tenuduh
zs dsngan hukuman sepem beukm
_
cnz>.nvuu ».m..m..w...m zvmun w.,mm. nus
IN muvuxmaumaxwcuvuan
-um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
OKT dmukum vemara selzma a mm. m bawah Selxsyon
ascmm) Akla Dzdah Earl-aahayu 1552 flan mpennxanxan
rnen]a\am pengawasan AADK selama 2 lallun sdepas merualaru
hukuman dw bawah Seksyen 335 Am umah Eerbzhaya 1:52
ALASAN ATAS HUKUMAN SEDEMIKIAN DIPUTUSKAN
FRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG DALAM MENGHUKUM
m 15 Pnnsup undzngamdang berhuhung hukuman (e\ah .eIas flan
mama». Pertlmbangan mama rnengenaw hukuman ml se\aIn
laklnwlaktm lam ada\ah Iaklor kepentmgan awam m samplng rlu.
vakxov kepenlmgan awam ml pevlu dumbangw dengan vakcor
m Igasi Terluduh
19 Eenepalan an slni unluk an xrnbas Kembah pznduan menghukum
yang mnyanaxan da\am kes Public Pmucmo: v. Loo Choon
Fafl[19‘/6] 2 MLJ 259 yang mengelaskan seperll benkm
‘One ul me mum cmmdevatmns m m assessmenl ac senlenoe
Vs of mum: me uuaqmn m bum: waves! On lms poml u need
only mm: a passage mm me |udgmenl av Hxlbery J m Rex V
»<.m4n John nan as iaflowsr
m decwdvng me apnmhrmle senlnnci a cum! mama zrways
he gumea by uenam conswderatmns Tm ml and lovemoil
rs me gum mlarssl The cnmmal Vaw .; pubhdy enimced‘
nu! nmy mm me gum» m punishing cnme but also m the
7&4 .».v.«.um.,‘. All 2-mu F1g»7
N mupumaumxmvuan
mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
haul nfpvwannnq m A placer sentence‘ mm .n public.
news! In: mun mleresl .n Iwc whys n mly nah! amen
wno rmqhlbe hemmed m kyulma u Ieuvlmg Ia oilaveaiy
many an lhesupwsllmn Huhlllve uflendanscaugmarld
5 mm: Iruuxlwca «n: plmlshmenl Ml! be neghjwe Such a
senlznce mly also darn me pamcuhr cnmmal «mm
cummmmg a crime again or Induce mm In mm mm a
cnmmal in an nonesx Me The pubh: mam. _ mdaed
mm, and best served. .1 (he aflender n. Induced In mm
m Vmm alumna! my: to huncsl lwmg Om law am nu!‘
Ihevelnre. fix ma umanua la! a pamcmal mine‘ but fixes a
maximum lenlancn and leaves m lo the coun Io demde mm
mnm ms mmnunn me appmvflam senlelvue om aacn
cnmIna\ m ma palllculav amumslanuts at am use Nm
u umy .n realm to each cnme Imlm mgud lo each cnmmil‘
the com has In: mm imam: dulylu daufle wr-emeua he
‘amen! or ssvsm‘
Pzesmenls ind Mzgwslratas ave Mien Inchned qune namrafly la
ba :1uIv»sympzIVreI1c cu the accused Hus .. . m>mu\
2a vsyumlogbcal mcnon m we smmlmn m vmvm an. lundy
muses Is seen Vining an army Mwvm-Hus with 2umorI|y The
mmaanan suhmmed by x onnvuflgd pelwn mu am: namuny
hung up pmbbms av mnny havdslup and me Mher usual
pmblem! cl Ivmg In such a swluahon nne coun: mlgm pemavs
find n dnlficuu nu mm» as m what senlznce snmm b mpnud
:0 «nu ma wnvlclsd periou may not he mnher mmnm ml)!
aaamm: namsmp ms 15 my new .. . wvung lppmach
rne toned appmach .5 In sum . b-Vina. ax va as pass4b\:‘
belween me mleruls ul me nublxc and me mlevesm cl the
m accused mm Gnddam LCJ Vn Rex V smnanawm altered
some good aawc: wnen he saM—
,.....‘..... .........n..m......u >«wo:< 5x'<mAnan:z Pa:->8
sm muvumauxmxkmuvuau
mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he nnmnmy mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Theludge musl cmsmerme mhevesb ufluslme as we?! 1:
me vrueveslx cl me pnsmlets u .5 (an altar: nawl m
lhauwhl m seemslu hamnugm manna mlevetls ulwwea
meam nmy the Inleveslx nflhu pnwners"
BUDI BICARA
20 serain nu. say: juga mengamnu makvum hahawa undangrundang
membenkan bum mcara sepenuhnya kepada hahm mcaua unluk
H; menenlukan hukuman yang sepammya duamhkan ke alas
Dasalah ledam kuasa Im hendsldah dflaksanakan secara am: flan
szksama se\avas dengan prinswp undang-undang hemubung
nukuman
I5 21 Pnnsip W dInya|akan dengan Jena: dalam kes PP v. Jlfa bin
Baud [1551] 1 ms 25, [1951] 1 MLJ 315. an mzna Hakim
Morumeu Azmu (pada mesa nu) menggarlskan pnnsip-prlnswp
hukuman yang sepamnya sehigalmana bankul:
‘A ‘seniance awarding «a um means that 0:: umamz mull nod
zn amy ha wnmn m. ambn 0! m. punlihabk semen‘ mu u must
aka :2. assented and passed -n aocovdanoe wlm eszannsneu
lumual plmmp\es In assessmgsenlence‘ mm mm ma\n1acIors
to be wnsxdeved .5 whelrver me cam/vcted person ‘s 3 mt
nflender u ‘s «K Hus Durvvse um belure naxsmg sgmeuua a
Mngwsinle . required «a nil! luv evidence or wnluvmahon
N muvuxnaauxnaxkrcuvuan
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
venavdmv Ihe hackweund anxecadanl and sharing ml me
accused Wheve me canmchd nlvmn has nmwnus vecums anfl
mamas mum is owned m. cmm must mnildnv whvther ma
client: nv uflencel cnmmmzd pmvmusly wavn cl mm name
2; me am: wm. mm. he -n pvesamry merged rm.» mun must
then mum: me iemervces Imposed m mamevmusmvmns
can mum nflenaes m determine whelhgv Ihey hive run any
uexmm even an mm Wheve he .; «mm m no : vemmenx
auemy luv .3 mm we av ufilnoss (Mn n 1: m in: mtawu nl
m ....u.2 Ina! . delavlenl samance snoula be passed and‘ m such
. cast nlzssmem ave axupmonax mroumslancevi me warmly
nature or value at me suBpeI:l—n-miter ov me oflame mm mm he
\s cunenflymamed can very rarely mnsnm a mmanww hum
lemnhasws Maori)’
KESALAHAN SERIIJS
22 Kembah kepada kes lerhadap Terluduh m say: mengambll
maldum bahawa kesalahan yang auakukan uleh Terluduh adalah
20 suaru kesalaharl yang senus dan dlpandang beral nleh Pammen
yang meneiapkan hukuman pemara mmima 5 lahun hingga 7
Iahun dan sebalan holeh sampan 3 sebaun
23 Femrvlukan hukuman yang beret nu menumuxxan bahaw:
Is kesalahan yang dllakukan men Terluduh adalah serlus
;..4»....:.,. ».m.m...m.~.« !<vr:14 S.-uu.z..m Pagan)
sw muvuxmauxnaxxrcuvuan
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
| 2,257 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
CB-62D-334-12/2023 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH ARASU A/L VENUGOPAL @ VELUGOPAL | PROSEDUR JENAYAH : Mengaku salah – sabitan ke atas 3 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-sama ada sabitan teratur.RAYUAN : Rayuan atas hukuman – memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan sendiri – kesalahan berulang – sama ada hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan. HUKUMAN : Hukuman di bawah seksyen 39C(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya – sama ada hukuman penjara dan sebatan melampau – sama ada mitigasi tertuduh telah dipertimbangkan. | 09/02/2024 | Tuan Haji Jamaludin Bin Haji Mat | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7f457c4d-0adb-4daf-ae2c-5ee77ca0d154&Inline=true |
09/02/2024 14:52:06
CB-62D-334-12/2023 Kand. 13
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
ca—s2D—33a—12/2u23
DALAM MAHKAMAH sssvsu nu YEMERLOH,
DALAM NEGERI PANANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAVSIA
KES No: ca-520434.12/1023
s DI ANTARA
PEMDAKWA RAVA ...PENoAKwA
DAN
ARASU A/I. VENUGUFAL @ VELUGOPAL ...YERYUDUM
H KORUM: HAJI JAMALUDIN BIN HAJI MAT.
HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESVEN 1.
TEMERLOH
TARIKH HUKUMAN: 22 DISEMBER 2023
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
mu...“ »,..m.m.,w_m....,.m. ,._. \wr\mIIuw$:>'i)1BI
sw rx.m;mmmmum
mm Sum INNDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm
FERMULAAII
1 Nasan penghaklman my msemaxan benkulan danpada rayuan
Tenuduh yang max berpuas nan lemadap kepulusan siya yang
umenkan Dada 22.12.2023 a. mans saya |e|ah mensamnkan
Terluduh m bawah Snksyon csmm ma Dudah Berhallaya
I952 dan dmukum penjm selzmz a mum mulaw danpadz cam:
2n.9.2o2a darn 2 seblnan an bawah seksyen J5C(I](b) Akin
mam Eerhlllaya 1952 dzn dlpenmahkan
Dengawasan AADK se\ama 2 mum selepas memalam hukuman
an bawah Sekayen sea Aktz Dzdzh Berbahayi 1952
memalam
2 Rayuan adalah |emadap hukuman sahqz
3 Pennlah pemenjaraan wax dnawakuflxan
PERTUDUHAN
4 pm 21122023, Terluduh lelah umadapkan ke Mahkamah
Sesyen Temefluh dengan perluduhan sepem henkut
pnzrunumm
rmH.\\w. Kw!‘ MM 20 HAxmu|AN srvrwnrn 1()l3,JAM u-nm
K|‘RANG mm PA(:I.BEl<1EMPAI uu>a1.«ans,amcum s[AsArAN
xzmmx mxxom usu rmuw mzxm mu. m mum
mm/unazm numumuzcnummm mxuu.m<Muu mm
mmpm MrwaI:R|KA\‘ arm» um xmu swam mmm
N rx.m;mmmn<u»zvA
um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
25. Say: menuapau mmgasl yang dnberlkan oleh Tenufluh max
bermenl sama sekan
PENGAKUAN SALAH
25. save wga mengamml klra pengakuan salah Terluduh yang Ielah
menumzlkzn mesa den ms pmax-pmax yang |embat
27 Wa\au bagalmanapuny pengakuan salan Terluduh «max boleh
merqaw laklor mtligasl yang kuat dalam keadaan an mana
Tenumm memang miak mempunyaw apaapa pembe\aan pka kes
ml mbwaukan
25 Mahkamah ml mengamhn pendskalan yang sama seoagavnana
damn kes Tia Ah Long y. Public Pmsacuh-ar[20U4] 4 cu 17 m
mana YA Mokmar Sldln HMR menyalakan
‘In mm-mu :1 Vs an aooeunea mle nfpiamce mat an acnusad
assay. 7 ma pleads umlly In an enema mm Much he has been
Izhalged mm In given 2 ducoum an we aannenca um mm
mamsanava beanlmpused unmm has n. hezncunwflad mar
a mzl. ym an... 2.. nnpanam sxnapimns In om gmam Mu
maeea, Ihe oiiewes under me Danpemus Dual An 1952 ave
exoebnons m (ms mle‘
29 Mankaman ml savamulnya msrujuk kes PP v. Abdul Naum /ahak
4 saw Lagi [2013] 9 cm 559 m mzna VA Mnhd Zawaw: sauen
HMR Ielah menzalwkan pandangannya sebagaxmana benkm
(£42-n)4w1.mz1 PP|wNAIl-QMAVVEVI/k0>r~k./EH/@¢M mm. s:'KmAI:-|as1Pagel1
N YxxFmsKmzuLnmKuRvA
ma s.nn ...m.mm be used m yaw ma mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
‘[2111-cak dzpfiiumennkarkan Dahzwakssahhanyind ‘xemauan
denwan dadah aaaxan mempakan mu kenalahan yang sews
vans boleh menaancam keselnmavan flan mememman nefiara
sen: kzsmavan umum mm Ielah dusylmavkan sebavax musuh
: nmubursmunegl aleh xmym pad: u.>m.. 1553 Juslem. pk:
mahkamsh mimslmkan lmkuman yzng rmgin kapndx um
mauanan vans u-mapxan me\aIu\ Parllmen wbagau sews‘
sudah llnw Demndungan myanmya max dine! «mum
mm wan! um. Dalam ken Vusma/In Samsudm y FF
10 (smart) mahklmah meneanskan
Yhe seveuly cl serllznce can my be in veiled
p.m.m.m Imammn that mlvvlflmn luv bsmq m
wsumn of a was amour-I 07 am term at vvommlad
dtvgs mun wmmensmue mm the sentence 1» be name
Is on me Dec-Aha: Incls oi mm case‘
PESALAH TEGAR
so Saya juga memperlimhangkan laklm bahawa sabflan x
zu bukamah kesalahan panama Tenuduh Rakod sabnan Iimpau
Tenuduh (P5) yang dikemukakan dx Mzhkamah menunjukkan
bahawa Tenuduh mempunym 3 samnan Varu bagv kasawahan yang
sama
25 31 Rekod sabnan lampau Tenuduh menuruukkan bahawa Terluduh
merupakan pesaxah legar‘ masm belum msav dan mam belum
serik wedaupun Ielah beruxang kah keluar masuk pevuara. Semua
xesawanan yang mlakukan yuga adalah berkadan denqan dadah
W :2
sw YxxFmsKmzuLnmKDRvA
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
32 Oleh yang demlklany sewa.amya Temmun dxkenakan hukuman
yang berat
as Beraasarkan kepada nas-nas an mas, saya berpuas nan nanawa
5 nnkmnan peruava s lahun dzn 2 sehatzn yang mxenakan oleh
Mankaman um auarah semi dengan kepulusan Mahkamah Alasan
m axaa yang menghendakl Mahkamzh mengenakan hukuman
yang berae nagx kes-kes yang melunawan kepemlngan awam
Hukuman peruava 5 12mm dan 2 sanacan adalah wa.ar
m marnandangkan om mempunyav 3 sabnan Vampau bagx
kesakahan yang sama sebemm .n.
TIADA RAsA INSAF um asnnuan
15 34 Walaupun da\am mmgaswnyay Terluduh menyalakan telah kesal
dan msal, [slam kelakuannya menunjukkan sebalxknyi
35 Sekiranya behau benar—benar insav, sudan Ientu bellau max axan
msngulangl kesalahan yang sama bevulang kah
as. Mahkamah Im mevujuk kes PP V4 Tah An Cheng [1975] 2 MLJ
155 m mana YA Abdmfl Carter H |e\ah menya|akan sepem henk
The mponaam am pm: lnrwlm .n N: mu m mmgalmn me
:5 (ad um ha 15 emphyad lml supwfl: In lged maths! and
steobmthers He should or course have |hmAgM ul ms belave
wnnnnng me eifemes and nm am I1: \s m lam pleading
cnunnxuzmj ,.....4nmma.‘..yaum... Wm :19: mam
N YxxFmsKn1zuLnnrKDRvA
ma saw ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.ny mm: m.u.n wa mum puns!
rvavdimp ansmg «nun me oonuquencns av ms awn an: and I
wound rename wnal u had oocanon pveanusny m absent: m
analhev cnse max an erlender snaum no! man «a exzns ov
harness any symnanny on an ms: mm try Iakmfi max azanoe or
the xmvfluuus mm whu kmad ms pnrams mm an us and (hen
pmadad .n mmnxllun uunn wu an mphan'
KEFENYINGAN AWAM TERPELJHARA
37.
33
39
40
saya psrcaya. Kepantmgan awam akan leblh (erpehhari Ma
Termduh diasmgkan danpada masyarakal dalam sualu tempoh
yang pamang
Tempon pemeruaraan yang panpng mga dmaraykan flapal
membanm Terluduh un|uk melupakan najls dadah yang mungkln
a-man meluadl damn dagmg rammn
Tempah pemeruaraan yang panyang Inga dmlvlpkan dapal
hubungan Terluduh dengan Iakarrvakan
sepemenayah yang lawn dan Tenuduh dapal memalam progvim»
program pemuhhan dengan aman
memuluskan
Semaga se\epas rnenglkuh program-plcgvam yang (e\ah msusun
sernasa dw pemara nanu dapal mengmsalkan Tenuduh dan
membarl peluang kapada Tanudun umuk berrmmasabah dun dan
bembah kepada aamang mszn yang lebm hawk flan dapal
memnggalkan dadah sepenunnya
I-mwuus«mvrwm mrnnrnnu nu/um Uumnn v:xPa;=.<u
N YxxFmsKmzuLnmKDRvA
Nuns a.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. annnnn mm: dun-mm wa mum Wm
41. Says wga bemarap belllu mengambvl pamang semasa meruaiam
hukuman penjara Imtuk mempe\a‘an pehzagax kemahwan
nerraeaan yang bolen dvgunakan unluk mencan vezekl yang ha\a!
kaxika mbebaskan darlpada penjara nanll
PELUANG MEMBAIKI DIRI
42. sernoga dengan (empnh pemerualaan yang Vamz Im member:
pemang kepada Tsnuduh unmk herubah aan memperhilkw dun’
meruadl seclang warganegara yang berguna dan menuksr cars
nnmp xepaaa yang Iebm balk
4: Di penjara ‘ugay Tertuduh bsrpeluang unmk bewayar nmu—un-u
axaaannx din Ilmu-Ilmu kemamran kandm secara tersusun
bevsama pegawa\—pegzwa| yang benaunan
Auawan cnnarapxan, sekzpas dmebaskan danpada penya.-a nannn
Tenuduh ‘mu mm mm a new leaf den membebzskan din
davipada nans dadzh sena memadv seurang msan barn yang Islam
20 pmauknv, menyayangx din dwssyangl oxen :nggo|a masyaraka|
Rulausm
45. D: aknn anansus, saya berpendapat hukumzn yang lelah
dualuhkan adalzh menglkm unaang-unuang, wajar dan
c..m,,.m, »..y.....g~.Mw...mm».. mm mn......n,n>;;us
syn rx.m;mmnnn<u»zvn
Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; .. nrimruflly mm: dun-mm VIZ mum wrm
munasabah ssna sehmpa\ dengan kssmahan yang dllakukan meh
Terluduh
Eonarlkh pad; arm. Fehmari 2024.
Mahkamah Sasyen Temerloh,
Pahang Damn Mukmur‘
Pvhak-Pihak:
Pnndakwa Ray: dlwaklll clan Fuan TPR Ar-duul Azw: binli
KAmaru|Anuzr
zn Pnmm nmtunn Pan-ukwu Ruyu,
Terllerlah.
En Khziml Anna! bin Ahu Haszn Ashaa1irnew2kil|T:m|dulI.
.w..m~. .mm.= -Lu/ufln 1xv11n1> mm. Mug. I5
sw rx.m;xmzumnmum
-ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum pm
snxsamu news -woxrznm. l\l ADALAH KLSALAHAN mu
xzzww mm m mmu mm Mzuxuux: snu xcsxunm
mmwm sm mum um. mom BICKEAHAVA V152 am 301 m
|J1Hw.LM nvmmu srxsvm wcu; mm ww: smu mum
nrwm smvw sax-xum<u nnmu nrrumu/M N52
nmumn
mm DYSABITKESALAHAN l[E\DAkLAHDlHUkU\1 FENIAKA sum“
mmaon nmx ma/mu rs) mum on nmx uznm mm m
m mmw rm HENDAKI AH nnxzmmm snm nmx Ltam mm m
srnmw mm PwGA\w\sAV mun KURAN * 2 mum I)/w YIDAK
Mrvrmm Izmulx.
PENGAKUAN
5 Pertumman m alas lelah dlbacakan dengan Ierang dan was
kapida Tanuduh dakam Eahasa Tamfl yang dflahaml men
Tenuduh
za 6 Tenuduh dengzn sukarela mengaku bersalah ke alas
nenuaunan (ersebul.
7 Mihkamah ssleruwlya manevangkan sflai den aklbal pengakuan
salah lersebuldan perumukan hukuman yang bo\eh dlkenakan ke
:5 alas Tenuduh
¢..mW..., .,........Mwm.mm... xwmvn sxIcmAI>I\v:1P2g<3
sw YxxFmsKn1zuLnmKDRvA
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
a Tenuduh memahaml penerangan Mahkamah aan maslh
mengaku salah ke alas penuduhan‘ dan (aham sifat dan zkmat
pengakuannya ||u
RINGKASAN FAKTA KES FENDAKWAAN
9 secemsnya, nmnaran Fendakwz Raya (evpelmar msngemuxakan
nngkasan Iakla kes vendakwaan
H) 10 Rmgkasan fakla kes lelah dwbacakan dan dnerangkzn kepada
Tertuduh melahn guruhahasa Tamv Mahkamah din dwsahkan
sebagal belul
11 Rlngkasan (akta kes kamudlinnya uwanaakan sehagal ekshibxl
I5 P1
EKSH|B|T—EKSHlB|T
12 Selelusnya, Tlmbalan Fendakwz Raya Ielpelajar mengemukakan
20 ekshmn-sksmbvl sepem bsnkul
(a) Tnang Repurl N 125/2023 sebagax F2
([1) Tnang Reparl No 3135/2023 sebagaw P3
(ch Lapovan palolugu sebagax P4 — auumuxkan can dlakw
s (a) Rekad Pusal Pendaflaran Pemenayah sebagai P5 —
dnbacakan aan mam
(;u2v1u\1mo:7 —.m..ww..W....v....m».. uvnvzl ;m.u»...;.m.;
sw rx.m;mmmn<u»zvA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
(ep 4 kepmg gambar new unn sebagav FSA-D — cmumukkan um
mam
RAVUAN Tsnumm
13 Mahkamah selemsnya mendengzv myuan flanpada Terluduh
14 Terluduh melaluv peguam vaex, dalam rayuannya menyatakan.
(at on berusla 44 (shun
m (h) old bekeqa sebagaw pemolong buah sawu dengan
nenaapacsn RM! ‘ooo sebman.
(C) OKT sudah berkahwm‘ menanggung seomng Isten din
seorang anak yang masm belzgav
(<1) Pengakuan salah celan jlmalkan mass dan kos pendakwaan
15 (e) on less! dan Insafsenz beqann hdak ulangl kesa\ahan Wag!
ll) OKT penanggung mama Keluarga
(g) on ada penyakfl asma
my OKT memohun nukuman peruara mnuma bsrmwa dam tankh
(angkap dan sehalan yang mwma
zo
HUJAH PEMEERATAN OLEH PEGAWAI psunmwa
15 nmnalan Pendakwa Raya lerpemar bemwah
15) Pnhon nukuman se(Impa\ beruemuk pengajaran agar em
25 hdak lag: mengmangi keszdahan yang sama pada masa
hadavan
041:3)“:-nn ruwmxnsq/Axvin/w>nu.vluo<.a>u nurmv :1~c(nAI>Im1 Erzges
aw YxxmsKmzuLnnrKuRvA
-ma Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm a. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
my Pohnn hukuman yang dzpzt hen pengqaran kepada on
flan masyarakax lam an luar sana agav «oak xenenak da\am
gEja\a penaglhan dadah
(cl Fohan amhu kw: rekcd simian Ian-pan ow sebanyak 3 hall
5 dibawahs15(1)(a)ADB1952
(up Kepenlmgan swam adalan maleblm kepermngan on
(e) OKT diremzn dan (znkh |angkzp mm 20 9 2023
suamu
m
15 Setelah mendengar pengakuan salzh Telluduh lanpa syarat.
menganahsa ‘Iakla kes‘ menelm ekshnbll-eksmbn yang leiah
mkemukakan m hadapan Mahkamah, Mahkzmah menenma
pengakuan salah Yermduh ke alas psrtuduhan dan mensamxan
ls Tenuduh sebagalmana perluduhan
HLIKUMAN
17. Selelah memmbang rayuan Terluduh‘ mush pembeman
In TImha\an Pendakwa Raya‘ Mahkamah menghukum Tenuduh
dengan hukuman seperll benkm
on dmukum peruava se\ama s mum mmaw 20.5.2023 den 2
sehatan an bawah Seksyell 39C(1)(b) Akin Dadah Bcrbahaya
1952 den aupenmankan merualam pengawasan AADK se\ama 1
mum se\epas merualam hukuman dw bawah Seksyen use Akla
Dadah Eerhahay: 1952
cnznnaxzaeu ..W....;u._mw...mw.. mm xMmA|7n~:1V:gea
sw rx.m;mmmn<um
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
ALASAN ATA5 HUKUMAN SEDEMIKIAN DIPUTUSKAN
PRIMSIP IJNDANG-UNDANG mum MENGNUKUM
5 15 Pnnslp unnang-undang bemubung hukuman Ielah jelas dan
manlap Pemmbangan mam: mengenau hukuman ml se\aIn
vakxouakm lam adadah Iakxov kepenlmgan awam D: samplng nu,
Vaklor kepenlmgan awam Im perlu dumbangw flengan vakxor
mwigasi Tenuduh
we aenepauan an sml unluk di Imbas kembah panduan menghukum
yang mnyavakan dalam kes Public Pmsecular v. Loo Choon
Fanlmel 2 MLJ 259 Van: merllelaskan sewn benkut
‘On: no the mam cnnswderzlmnl vn Ina uszssmem 04 senlence
u ul cuulse ms nuuhun :11‘ pm: xmmut On this am u need
onw qume a Fissaga lvom the wdgment cl Hnbaly J m Rex V
Ksnrwm ./aim sau aa iofluws —
:u ‘M aeudma me aPDropna|e semenoe a cam! muuld away:
be named by cerlam mnsrdernhans Tnefirsland umemosa
ws me name mines! The ctimmal xaw ws Duhlhsly enlcvoed‘
rum nmy war. In: ahgeul M pumsmng crime. am an m me
maps no prevenlmg n A pmplv senlnnca. hissed m pm:
2s mm me Dubhc uneven M1 M0 way: u may delat mhers
who mam betemuled to ny cnme aa seammg In ailarazxy
mam math: supwsman (ha! vllhe Mendel wscaughl and
broughl m mshce. Ine p1mIshmen|wflIbe negxwe Such 3
“Mann: may Ibo flelev we psmculm alumina! «mm
xyvhlrn ~‘,NvnnASuAAv(MAd .m...... mvnnzx um... .31 F237
N YxxFmsKn1zuLnnrKDRvA
ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm
oumrmllmsl a cum: aaim. ul mane: mm to mm mm a
mmmal la in nanesl me The pm: \meIes\ Vs mused
served am besl served. iv me mum ‘a "mean In mm
«mm anmmax way! «a mmax| Vnmlg Om Ilw does nut.
s mecelurz. nx ms sentence my a pamcmal crime‘ an fixes a
maxmm unlance and was n lo ma court lo «mas wna:
us, wnmn It-a maximum. me avhmrmatae senlence hr each
nnmlrm m me namcular chcumslanaes at each use Nm
mum veqard In each mm: mu m mam m each cnmmnl
m lheawnMsmengmnndllzdulylndactdnwhalharkube
ramam nv revere’
Pvasrdam: am Magmmaa a. Man Inchmd quite nanmauy Io
be vvauymvilheuc to live aamsa Tms m a nurrna\
hsychokzglcal veuuon m the suuamn m mm Ihe many
15 nccused 15 seen (saw an array atvmnesses wuh mnhonly ma
rmlxg-lwn submmed by a carwuned palsun mu llw rmrmifly
bring up pmmemt ow famny havdsmp and the ulnar uiua\
pvuhhms nl lwmg In such a snuauan the wane mam pemaps
mm 1: menu «a dsade as to what semence should he Vmposed
In so that me covwmled versan may nal he mm. huldened mm
aaamanax hands
1:... mrvecl nnnvubch .a m xlnka a hlmnua a. 1:! aa vuunhm
nanwaan the Interest: m ma publxc and ma mlevvsts m we
hound Lam Goddard LCJ In Rex v smnatmm. oilered
25 someueodadwoe whenhes:>d—
we M0512 mus! wwsxuet me Inlemsu onuslme as wefl as
me vmetesls nl ma pnsmver: u .a (nu anan nvwidiys
Yms .a my m. is a wmna iflbmicn
lhauahl, m seems m be Ihcuglm Irmlne mheresl: nhullme
mean) amyml Inlnvuts uflha winners
BUDI BICARA
cnabnmzxn ...m....Wma.a.a.maaa... ...m., ;1~(H|.\nnI~§1l7iReB
sm YxxmsKn1zuLnmKDRvA
“Nair am.‘ n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 w my a. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm
zo Selam nu, saya .uga mengambll maklum bahawa unaang-unaang
membenkan bud: blcara sepenuhnya kepada haklm bmara uruuk
rnsnamukan nukuman yang sepalmnya dualuhkan ke alas
5 pesaxan lelapw kuasa m1 hendaklah dflaksanzkan secava aun dan
saksama selalas dengan Prinmp undangdmdang belhubung
nukuman
21 Pnnslp ml dlnyalakan dengan Aelas dalam kes as V. Jlh bin
m mm: [1931] 1 ms 25‘ [1951] 1 MLJ 315. a. man: Hakim
Mohamed Azmi (pads masa VIM) mengganskan pnnslp-pllnslp
rmkuman yang sspamlnya sebagalmana benkm
‘A ‘senlvnce aconmmq In 1:»! main: max 1n: aamervue mus! no:
why he wllmn me ambul 0! ms pumshalfls :ec1mn. mu 11 mm
1: 315° he assessnd and passed -n acwmance wlm estzbluhad
ludmalnrvnmvles 1n assessmg senxenon one n! we rnamfadolx
1.: be oansmamfl 1: whemer Ihe umwmled person 15 : fivsl
nflendel 11. [av ms pawns: mm heme passmi sen1en=e1 a
Magnbale 1; veqmrad m can our ewdanne ur Inlavmalmn
zu Isgammg (ha badgmund‘ anlscndam and Izhavaclal av me
amused Wheve me cmwmled veuson has Nevlous rectum: mud
adnms mem as auvvecl we own musl aonsmu whemel me
nrflunca or Mltnces cammnled D1e»4mus\y wave 91 stmflar name
.5 1n. an: Mm which in Is Dleienlly unnamed The com! mus!
25 men mlmdsrlhe semancu Imnnxed .n ma vvzvmuscnnvscmns
m.m.1...., ...wn...;1...1.n.w..mwa«.. zzwwx ..:m.~1
n YxxmsKn1zuLnmKDRvA
Nuns s.n.1 In-v1hnrw\H be used w my 1.. nnnmun mm: dun-mm wa nnum pm
lav svmnm offence: to delemlme memeq may have hafl nnv
flalnnunl anaax an nnn Wnlm ha 1: found In be 2 perxmam
oflanflev ran a wvmav -we 0! Mver-oei. «nan n V; In (he mleveil 471
wines that a datelvenl semenoe snomu be passed ana, m such
a case unlass there are exaeolmnnlalcumslances meauanmy
name avvalue anne suh1eI:1~ma\lel Mme meme wllh which he
n cunenlly umgea can very lively urmslllule . mmgahng fadur
mnnnana mad)‘
H) KESALAHAN SERIUS
22. Ksmhall kepaaa Kas (avhadau Tenuduh mu. saya mengimbn
maklum ballawa kesalahan yang mlakukan aleh Tenuduh ada\ah
sualu kesamhan yang senus can mpamung bera! oleh Pammen
Is yang menelapkan hukuman penjara Irwuma 5 tahun ningga 7
(ahun dan seba|an wen sampal 3 sebalan
23 Perunlukan hukuman yang beta! nu menunjukkan bahawa
kesmahan yang anakukan oleh Tenuduh adalah senus
FAKTOR MWIGASI
2A Dv samplng nu saya yuga mampemmbangkan mmgasx Tenuduh
Walau nagannanapun, saya hdak nampzk sebzrang a\asan yang
zs munasahah mkemukakan bagl membenarkan Tenuaun (ems
mengmang. kesalahan yang sama bemlang kah
war .n. Wnwr-Ar!-\w~\vrwawM yam nvnm) :1mnnI>ImzP:1guI0
N YxxFmsKmzuLnmKDRvA
Nuns a.nn n-nhnrwm be used w my a. annnnn mm: dun-mm wa .nuNG wrm
| 2,131 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
CA-42S-6-09/2022 | PERAYU 1. ) MOHAMMAD ZAWANI BIN MOHAMMAD JASNI 2. ) Azreen Binti Junysar RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya | Kedua-dua Perayu telah disabitkan oleh HMS dengan pertuduhan di bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 yang di baca bersama s. 34 Kanun Keseksaan. Kedua-dua Perayu dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 8 tahun mulai tarikh hukuman (13/9/2022). Kedua-dua Perayu juga diperintahkan melaksanakan bon berkelakuan baik dengan pengawasan selama 3 tahun menurut s. 31(2)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, serta diperintahkan untuk menjalani program khidmat masyarakat selama 120 jam menurut s. 31 (3A) Akta yang sama, yang perlu diselesaikan dalam tempoh 6 bulan. Pihak Pendakwaan pula memfailkan rayuan silang terhadap hukuman penjara lapan (8) tahun yang dijatuhkan oleh HMS dan memohon hukuman penjara yang lebih panjang tempohnya. Mahkamah menolak rayuan kedua-dua Perayu dan mengekalkan sabitan oleh HMS. Mahkamah membenarkan rayuan Pihak Pendakwaan dan menukar hukuman penjara kepada kedua-dua Perayu dari 8 tahun kepada 10 tahun. Pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan setiap intipati pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu, adalah dapatan yang betul yang tidak perlu diganggu oleh Mahkamah ini. | 09/02/2024 | YA Dato' Mohd Radzi bin Harun | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2a730156-6930-428e-84b7-6f2221bdeb4c&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - GOJ CA-42S-6-09-2022 Mohamad Zawani v PP (Akta Kanak-Kanak) 2.2024
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUANTAN
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. CA-42S-6-09/2022
ANTARA
1. MOHAMMAD ZAWANI BIN MOHAMMAD JASNI
(NO. K/P: 880102-10-5179)
2. AZREEN BINTI JUNYSAR
(NO. K/P: 881213-06-5194) ...PERAYU-PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA ...RESPONDEN
(RAYUAN TERTUDUH)
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUANTAN
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. CA-42H-1-09/2022
ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAYA ...PERAYU
LAWAN
1. MOHAMMAD ZAWANI BIN MOHAMMAD JASNI
(NO. K/P: 880102-10-5179)
2. AZREEN BINTI JUNYSAR
(NO. K/P: 881213-06-5194) ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
(RAYUAN SILANG PENDAKWA RAYA)
(Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Sesyen Jenayah (4) Kuantan
No. Kes: CA-62-41-10/2020)
09/02/2024 10:44:40
CA-42S-6-09/2022 Kand. 42
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
LATARBELAKANG
[1] Kedua-dua Perayu telah disabitkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen
(“HMS”) dengan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-
Kanak 2001 yang di baca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.
Kedua-dua Perayu dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 8 tahun mulai tarikh
hukuman (13/9/2022). Kedua-dua Perayu juga diperintahkan
melaksanakan bon berkelakuan baik dengan pengawasan selama 3
tahun menurut s. 31(2)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, serta diperintahkan
untuk menjalani program khidmat masyarakat selama 120 jam menurut s.
31 (3A) Akta yang sama, yang perlu diselesaikan dalam tempoh 6 bulan
dari tarikh hukuman. Mereka memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah ini bagi
sabitan dan hukuman tersebut.
[2] Pihak Pendakwaan pula memfailkan rayuan silang terhadap
hukuman penjara lapan (8) tahun yang dijatuhkan oleh HMS dan
memohon Mahkamah ini meminda hukuman tersebut kepada hukuman
penjara yang lebih panjang tempohnya.
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[3] Mahkamah ini telah menolak rayuan kedua-dua Perayu dan
mengekalkan sabitan oleh HMS. Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan
rayuan Pihak Pendakwaan dan menukar hukuman penjara kepada
kedua-dua Perayu dari 8 tahun kepada 9 tahun, dan mengekalkan
perintah-perintah lain yang diberikan oleh HMS mengenai bon
berkelakuan baik dan program khidmat masyarakat.
[4] Kedua-dua Perayu sekarang merayu terhadap keputusan
Mahkamah ini.
KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH SESYEN
[5] Keterangan di hadapan HMS secara ringkasnya adalah seperti
berikut:
5.1 Jam 12 tengah hari 9/7/2018 Jabatan Kecemasan Hospital
Tengku Ampuan Afzan Kuantan (HTAA) menerima panggilan
dari Perayu Kedua (ibu Simati) memaklumkan bahawa anaknya,
Simati tidak sedarkan diri.
5.2 Ambulans sampai di tempat kejadian pada jam 12.30 tengah
hari.
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
5.3 Sesampai di HTAA, pegawai perubatan bertugas, SP8,
melakukan pemeriksaan terhadap Simati dan mendapati beliau
sudah tidak bernyawa.
5.4 Dari pemeriksaan luar, SP8 dapati luka dan kecederaan berikut
pada Simati:
(i) lebam di pelbagai anggota badan Simati;
(ii) gigi patah iaitu gigi depan bahagian atas dan bahagian
bawah;
(iii) satu luka di bahagian kepala;
(iv) satu parut lama di bahagian lengan kanan;
(v) lebam belah kiri lengan, ketiak kiri, dan bahagian
belakang badan;
(vi) luka kecil di kemaluan; dan
(vii) parut lama kecil di bahagian perut.
5.5 SP8 menghubungi Perayu Kedua dan memaklumkan keadaan
Simati. Perayu Kedua memaklumkan SP8 bahawa pada malam
sebelumnya (8/7/2018) Simati mengalami berak cair dan Simati
terjatuh semasa keluar dari tandas. Esok paginya (9/7/2018)
Simati tidak ke sekolah kerana sakit kepala dan hanya tidur.
Jam 11.00 pagi Perayu Kedua mendapati Simati dalam keadaan
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
pucat dan letih. Beberapa minit kemudian Perayu Kedua dapati
Simati tidak sedarkan diri lalu beliau memanggil ambulans.
5.6 SP8 dapati sejarah yang diberikan oleh ibu Si mati adalah tidak
konsisten dengan hasil pemeriksaan luaran yang dijalankan oleh
SP8. SP8 selanjutnya membuat laporan polis sebagaimana
Laporan Kuantan 19794/18 (Ekshibit P20).
5.7 Post mortem yang dijalankan oleh SP13 mendapati punca
kematian mangsa adalah “gastro-intestinal bleed due to
esophageal ulcer” sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam
Laporan Post Mortem yang dikeluarkan oleh SP13 (Ekshibit
P89).
5.8 Hasil siasatan pegawai penyiasat (SP14) mendapati Simati
merupakan anak kandung kepada Perayu Kedua dan
berdasarkan Sijil Kelahiran Simati (Ekshibit P93), maklumat
bapa adalah tidak diperoleh.
5.9 Simati tinggal bersama dengan kedua-dua Perayu dan seorang
adik simati (Hudfurqan Zulqarnain bin Abdullah) di rumah tempat
kejadian beralamat seperti dalam pertuduhan.
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
5.10 Pihak Pembelaan berhujah bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan gagal
membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap kedua-dua Perayu
atas alasan-alasan berikut:
(i) Perayu Pertama telah mengemukakan Notis Alibi untuk
menunjukkan bahawa Perayu Pertama tidak berada di
tempat kejadian dari 7/7/2018-9/7/2018 kerana berada di
Klang.
(ii) Keterangan SP8 mengesahkan bahawa laporan polis
beliau (eksibit P20) hanya menyatakan Simati mengalami
“lebam dan luka pada anggota badan” dan tidak
menyatakan secara terperinci kecederaan Simati.
(iii) SP8 juga mengatakan beliau hanya mengesyaki terdapat
penderaan pada diri Simati namun tidak pasti sama ada
kecederaan pada diri Simati adalah betul-betul
disebabkan penderaan.
(iv) Kegagalan Pihak Pendakwaan memanggil adik simati
(Hudfurqan Zulqarnain) membolehkan HMS
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
menggunakan s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terhadap
Pihak Pendakwaan.
(v) Adalah jelas bahawa kematian Simati bukan disebabkan
kecederaan fizikal pada badannya tetapi pendarahan
salur makanan akibat ulcer oesophagus, sepertimana
laporan post mortem SP13.
(vi) Pihak Pendakwaan gagal mengemukakan hasil analisa
forensik yang dilakukan oleh pihak polis terhadap 3
telefon bimbit dan 1 tablet milik kedua-dua Perayu yang
dirampas dari mereka.
[6] Mahkamah ini memutuskan dapatan HMS bagi semua analisa yang
dibuatnya dalam menghuraikan intipati s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak
2001 berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes-kes
terdahulu dan selanjutnya merumuskan bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah
berjaya membuktikan setiap intipati pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua
Perayu, adalah dapatan yang betul yang tidak perlu diganggu oleh
Mahkamah ini.
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
[7] Setelah Mahkamah ini meneliti segala dapatan HMS seperti
dinyatakan dengan terperinci dalam Alasan Penghakimannya,
Mahkamah ini dapati HMS telah menggunapakai peruntukan undang-
undang dan prinsip undang-undang yang betul tatkala memutuskan untuk
memanggil kedua-dua Perayu membela diri bagi pertuduhan setelah
berpuashati bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes
prima facie: s. 180(1) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, PP v Mohd Radzi Abu
Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457, Low Kow Chai & Anor v PP [2003] 2 MLJ 69,
Balachandran v PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85.
[8] Keterangan Perayu Pertama (SD1) semasa membela diri adalah
semata-mata untuk menujukkan bahawa beliau tiada di tempat kejadian
pada tarikh dan waktu kejadian. Beliau menceritakan kali terakhir beliau
berjumpa Simati ialah pada 6.7.2018. Pada pagi 7.7.2018 beliau bertolak
ke Kuala Lumpur. Pada tengah hari 7.7.2018 beliau pulang ke rumah
emaknya di Klang dan berjumpa emaknya (SD3). Pada petang 8.7.2018
beliau keluar minum bersama adiknya SD4. Pada pagi 9/7/2018 beliau
mendapat panggilan telefon dari isterinya, Perayu Kedua, memaklumkan
Simati tidak sedar diri, lalu Perayu Pertama terus bergegas balik ke
Kuantan.
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[9] Perayu Kedua (SD2) memberi keterangan pada pagi kejadian
Simati tidak pergi ke sekolah kerana Perayu Kedua terlewat bangun pada
pagi itu dan tidak sempat menyiapkan Simati. Beliau lalu mengejutkan
Simati dan memberitahu dia tidak perlu ke sekolah. Dalam pukul 11.00
pagi beliau kejutkan Simati tetapi Simati tidak buka mata dan tidak
bangun. Apabila mendapati Simati tiada respon, beliau menelefon
suaminya, Perayu Pertama, dan juga menelefon ambulans.
[10] Mahkamah ini mendapati dapatan HMS yang memutuskan bahawa
pembelaan alibi Perayu Pertama adalah penafian semata-mata tanpa
disokong oleh mana-mana keterangan lain adalah dapatan yang betul.
Walaupun keterangan SD3 dan SD4 digambarkan seolah-olah Perayu
Pertama tiada di tempat kejadian pada tarikh dan hari kejadian, namun
HMS mendapati keberadaan Perayu Pertama telah disahkan sendiri oleh
kedua-dua Perayu semasa Pemeriksaan Utama. Keterangan SD3 dan
SD4 yang merupakan saksi berkepentingan dinilai oleh HMS secara
berhati-hati, sejajar dengan prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes Kofri
Mustafar v PP [2010] 9 CLJ 519, PP v Ng Nai Lim [2011] 1 LNS 487,
PP v Shawal Senin [2012] 1 LNS 1229.
[11] Mahkamah ini selanjutnya mendapati HMS telah membuat dapatan
yang betul setelah beliau berpuashati bahawa keterangan SD3 dan SD4
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
adalah tidak credible dan “tainted and tailored” memandangkan status
mereka sebagai saksi berkepentingan.
[12] Berdasarkan segala dapatan tersebut, Mahkamah ini dapati HMS
telah membuat rumusan dan keputusan yang betul di akhir kes Pihak
Pembelaan apablia memutuskan bahawa hasil penilaiannya secara
menyeluruh ke atas keterangan saksi-saksi Pendakwaan dan pembelaan
jelas menunjukkan bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya
membuktikan suatu kes melebihi keraguan munasabah manakala kedua-
dua Perayu pula telah didapati gagal untuk menimbulkan sebarang
keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes Pihak Pendakwaan.
KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH INI
ISU PRELIMINARI: KEABSAHAN PERTUDUHAN
[13] Pertamanya, Mahkamah ini ingin menyentuh mengenai Pertuduhan
terhadap kedua-dua Perayu, yang berbunyi seperti berikut:
“Bahawa kamu bersama-sama antara 09/06/2018 hingga
09/07/2018 di rumah beralamat No. 32, Lorong Permatang Badak
Maju 39, Taman Permatang Badak Maju, dalam Daerah Kuantan,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, sebagai orang yang
mempunyai pemeliharaan terhadap seorang kanak-kanak iaitu
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
Muhammad Luthhakim bin Abdullah, No. KP 080201-10-2349, telah
mengabaikan kanak-kanak tersebut daripada mendapatkan
rawatan perubatan dan pemeliharaan yang mencukupi sehingga
menyebabkan kanak-kanak tersebut mengalami kecederaan fizikal
yang membawa kepada kematian kanak-kanak itu.
Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di
bawah seksyen 31(1) Akta kanak-Kanak 2001 dan dibaca bersama
seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.”
[14] Sebelum Mahkamah ini membacakan keputusannya, Mahkamah ini
telah bertanya kepada Timbalan Pendakwa Raya sama ada pertuduhan
dipinda oleh Pihak Pendakwaan pada mana-mana peringkat di hadapan
HMS untuk menyatakan secara spesifik bahawa kedua-dua Perayu
dituduh bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001?
[15] Mahkamah membangkitkan persoalan ini kerana pertuduhan
terhadap kedua-dua Perayu seperti dinyatakan dalam perenggan di atas
yang juga dikemukakan di ms 5 RR Jilid 1 hanya menyebut “seksyen
31(1) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001”. Namun demikian, Mahkamah ini dapati
Hujahan Bertulis Pihak Pendakwaan di akhir Kes Pendakwaan (ms 2 - 28
RR Jilid 4) menyebut pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu adalah di
bawah “seksyen 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001”. Manakala dalam
Hujahan Pihak Pendakwaan bagi maksud rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
ini pula (Kand. 24), Timbalan Pendakwa Raya menyatakan kedua-dua
Perayu dituduh di bawah “seksyen 31(1) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001”.
[16] Walaupun perkara ini tidak dibangkitkan oleh peguam kedua-dua
Perayu sama ada di hadapan HMS atau dalam hujahannya di hadapan
Mahkamah ini dan juga tidak dijelaskan oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
di hadapan Mahkamah ini sehinggalah perkara ini dibangkitkan oleh
Mahkamah ini, namun undang-undang adalah jelas bahawa Mahkamah
ini semasa meneliti sesuatu rayuan di hadapannya mempunyai kuasa
untuk meneliti semula segala keterangan dan dokumen di hadapan
Mahkamah dan membuat dapatan sewajarnya. Peranan Mahkamah ini
sebagai mahkamah rayuan adalah sebagaimana yang dihuraikan dalam
petikan di bawah dalam kes Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP & Another
Appeal [2004] 3 CLJ 737 di ms 752:
“This Court speaking through another eminent Judge, Abdul Hamid Mohamad
FCJ (as he then was) explained the role of appellate court as follows:-
“Clearly, an appellate court does not and should not put a brake and not
going any further the moment it sees that the trial judge says that that is his
finding of fact. It should go further and examine the evidence and
circumstances under which the finding was made to see whether, to borrow
the words of HT Ong (CJ Malaya) in Herchun Singh's case (supra)" there
are substantial and compelling reasons for disagreeing with the finding.
"Otherwise, no judgment would ever be reversed on question of fact and the
provision of s. 87 CJA 1964 that an appeal may lie not only on a question of
law but also a question of mixed fact and law would be meaningless.”
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
[17] Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah ini memutuskan walaupun pertuduhan
tidak menyebut secara spesifik sama ada kesalahan adalah di bawah s.
31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, namun ketinggalan ini tidak
menimbulkan sebarang ketakadilan kepada kedua-dua Perayu. Ini
kerana Mahkamah ini berpuashati bahawa elemen pertuduhan telah
dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam pertuduhan, yakni sebagai orang yang
mempunyai pemeliharaan terhadap Simati yang merupakan seorang
kanak-kanak telah melakukan suatu pengabaian sehingga menyebabkan
kecederaan fizikal yang membawa kepada kematian kanak-kanak
terbabit. Perincian pengabaian juga telah dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam
pertuduhan tersebut.
[18] Atas alasan itu, Mahkamah ini memutuskan pertuduhan terhadap
kedua-dua Perayu adalah teratur dan sah, dan walaupun pertuduhan
hanya menyebut s. 31(1) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, namun apabila
pertuduhan itu dibaca secara keseluruhannya, adalah jelas bahawa
kedua-dua Perayu dituduh di bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001.
APA YANG PERLU DIBUKTIKAN OLEH PIHAK PENDAKWAAN
[19] Peruntukan seksyen 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 yang mana
kedua-dua Perayu dipertuduhkan adalah seperti berikut:
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
“31.(1) Mana-mana orang, yang merupakan orang yang mempunyai
pemeliharaan seseorang kanak-kanak:
(a) yang menganiayai, mengabaikan, membuang atau mendedahkan
kanak-kanak itu atau bertindak secara cuai dengan cara yang
mungkin akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau
emosi atau yang menyebabkan atau membenarkannya dianiayai,
diabaikan, dibuang atau didedahkan sedemikian;
....
melakukan suatu kesalahan dan apabila disabitkan boleh didenda tidak
melebihi dua puluh ribu ringgit atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak
melebihi sepuluh tahun atau kedua-duanya.
(2) Mahkamah—
(a) hendaklah, sebagai tambahan kepada apa-apa hukuman yang dinyatakan
dalam subseksyen (1), memerintahkan supaya orang yang disabitkan atas
suatu kesalahan di bawah subseksyen itu menyempurnakan suatu bon
dengan penjamin untuk berkelakuan baik selama apaapa tempoh yang
difikirkan patut oleh mahkamah; dan
(b) boleh memasukkan dalam bon yang disempurnakan di bawah perenggan
(a) apa-apa syarat yang difikirkan patut oleh mahkamah.”
[20] Kesalahan di bawah s. 31(1) adalah dua jenis :
Pertama: apabila orang yang merupakan orang yang mempunyai
pemeliharaan seseorang kanak-kanak dengan sendirinya
melakukan mana-mana perbuatan yang berikut:
(a) menganiayai kanak-kanak itu dengan cara yang mungkin akan
menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi;
(b) mengabaikan kanak-kanak itu dengan cara yang mungkin akan
menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi;
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
(c) membuang kanak-kanak itu dengan cara yang mungkin akan
menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi;
(d) mendedahkan kanak-kanak itu dengan cara yang mungkin
akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau
emosi; atau
(e) bertindak secara cuai dengan cara yang mungkin akan
menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi.
Kedua: apabila orang yang merupakan orang yang mempunyai
pemeliharaan seseorang kanak-kanak tidak secara sendiri
melakukan penganiayaan, pengabaian, pembuangan, pendedahan
atau kecuaian itu tetapi menyebabkan atau membenarkan orang
lain melakukan penganiayaan, pengabaian, pembuangan atau
pendedahan kepada kanak-kanak itu yang mengakibatkan
kecederaan fizikal atau kecederaan emosi kepada kanak-kanak itu.
[21] Pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu secara khususnya adalah
berkenaan kesalahan “mengabaikan Simati daripada mendapatkan
rawatan perubatan dan pemeliharaan yang mencukupi sehingga
menyebabkan Simati mengalami kecederaan fizikal yang membawa
kepada kematiannya.”
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
[22] Maka, ini bermakna kedua-dua Perayu jatuh dibawah kategori
pertama yakni mereka dituduh melakukan sendiri pengabaian terhadap
kanak-kanak tersebut dan bukan menyebabkan orang lain
melakukannya.
[23] Apa yang perlu dibuktikan oleh Pihak Pendakwaan bagi pertuduhan
terhadap kedua-dua Perayu adalah:
(i) kedua-dua Perayu merupakan orang yang mempunyai
pemeliharaan terhadap Muhammad Luthhakim bin Abdullah
(seorang kanak-kanak yang berumur 9 tahun 8 bulan pada
waktu kejadian);
(ii) kedua-dua Perayu telah melakukan pengabaian terhadap
kanak-kanak tersebut, yang dilakukan sendiri oleh kedua-dua
Perayu;
(iii) pengabaian itu telah menyebabkan kecederaan fizikal kepada
kanak-kanak tersebut.
Isu 1: Penduaan Pertuduhan (Duplicity of Charge)
[24] Perkara pertama yang dibangkitkan oleh Peguam Perayu-Perayu
adalah bahawa terdapat penduaan pertuduhan (duplicity of charge)
apabila pertuduhan menyebut :
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
(a) mengabaikan kanak-kanak tersebut daripada mendapat
rawatan perubatan; dan
(b) mengabaikan kanak-kanak tersebut daripada mendapat
pemeliharaan yang mencukupi.
[25] Mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju dengan hujahan ini. Ia akan menjadi
penduaan pertuduhan jika pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu
menyebut, contohnya :
“ ... telah mengabaikan dan menganiayai kanak-kanak tersebut” atau
“... telah mengabaikan dan membuang kanak-kanak tersebut” atau
“ ... telah mengabaikan dan mendedahkan kanak-kanak tersebut”.
[26] Ini kerana “pengabaian”, “penganiayaan”, “pembuangan”,
“pendedahan” atau “bertindak secara cuai” adalah bentuk-bentuk
kesalahan yang berdiri dengan sendiri dan tidak boleh dicampur dalam
satu pertuduhan.
[27] Frasa “mendapatkan rawatan dan pemeliharaan yang mencukupi”
dalam pertuduhan bukan suatu bentuk kesalahan. Ia adalah cara dan
huraian pengabaian, yang disebutkan sebagai “dengan cara yang
mungkin atau menyebabkan” dalam subseksyen 31(1), yakni pengabaian
mendapatkan rawatan yang mencukupi dan pengabaian mendapatkan
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
pemeliharaan mencukupi telah menyebabkan dan mengakibatkan
kecederaan fizikal kepada Simati.
[28] Pengabaian mendapatkan pemeliharan mencukupi tidak sama
dengan penganiayaan, yang merupakan suatu bentuk kesalahan yang
berdiri secara sendiri.
[29] Kegagalan kedua-dua Perayu mendapatkan rawatan mencukupi
dan pemeliharaan mencukupi adalah dua bentuk huraian cara
pengabaian yang menyebabkan kanak-kanak itu mengalami kecedaraan
fizikal. Tatkala Pihak Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kewujudan
pengabaian melalui dua bentuk huraian tersebut maka kehendak s.
31(1)(a) telah dibuktikan sepenuhnya.
[30] Maka saya memutuskan alasan pertama rayuan kedua-dua Perayu
yang bergantung kepada hujahan bahawa pertuduhan terhadap kedua-
dua Perayu adalah berbentuk penduaan adalah ditolak.
Isu 2: Kesukaran Perayu-Perayu memfailkan Notis Alibi disebabkan
Penduaan Pertuduhan
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
[31] Susulan dapatan Mahkamah ini terhadap Isu 1 yang dibangkitkan
oleh Perayu-Perayu, maka Mahkamah ini memutuskan isu berkaitan
Notis Alibi yang dikaitkan dengan Penduaan Pertuduhan adalah tidak
berbangkit.
[32] Alasan ini juga ditolak oleh Mahkamah ini.
Isu 3: Pemakaian s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan - Kegagalan memanggil
Mohd Hudfurqan Zulqarnain bin Abdullah, adik Simati
[33] Peguam Perayu-Perayu berhujah bahawa kepentingan memanggil
Mohd Hudfurqan sebagai saksi adalah timbul ekoran keterangan SP13
bahawa Simati tidak makan dalam tempoh 24 - 48 jam sebelum kematian.
Memandangkan Hudfurqan, sebagai adik Simati, individu yang paling
hampir dengan Simati kerana hidup dan tinggal bersama-sama Simati
dan kedua-dua Perayu, maka adalah penting untuk dia dipanggil memberi
keterangan untuk membantu Mahkamah mendapat keterangan mengenai
bagaimana kedua-dua Perayu menjaga kebajikan makan-minum, pakai,
kesihatan, pendidikan Simati. Peguam Perayu-Perayu juga berhujah
bahawa apabila keterangan SP13 dilihat bersama dengan keterangan
SP5 yang mengatakan Simati bertubuh gempal dan sihat, ini
menunjukkan tiada pengabaian terhadap Simati. Maka, HMS terkhilaf
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
kerana tidak menggunapakai s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan atas kegagalan
Pihak Pendakwaan memanggil Hudfurqan kerana kegagalan itu
merupakan satu suppression of evidence.
[34] Undang-undang berkaitan pemakaian s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan
adalah jelas. Peruntukan ini terpakai tatkala suatu pihak gagal memanggil
saksi yang boleh memberi keterangan yang material dan penting
berkaitan isu untuk diputuskan Mahkamah kerana Mahkamah boleh
membuat inferens bahawa kegagalan memanggil saksi memberi
keterangan tersebut boleh menggagalkan kes pihak yang tidak
memanggil saksi itu.
[35] Seperti yang telah saya nyatakan awal tadi, apa yang perlu
dibuktikan oleh Pihak Pendakwaan adalah:
(i) Kedua-dua Perayu merupakan orang yang mempunyai
pemeliharan terhadap kanak-kanak berkenaan;
(ii) Kedua-dua Perayu sendiri yang mengabaikan kanak-kanak
tersebut;
(iii) Pengabaian yang dilakukan oleh kedua-dua Perayu tersebut
adalah pengabaian daripada mendapatkan rawatan perubatan
dan pemeliharaan yang mencukupi;
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
(iv) Pengabaian sedemikian telah menyebabkan kecederaan fizikal
kepada kanak-kanak tersebut
[36] Setelah meneliti fakta kes ini, saya memutuskan dalam kes ini,
pengabaian yang berlaku bukan semata-mata pengabaian fizikal
terhadap Simati. Laporan post mortem oleh SP13 menunjukkan
pengabaian yang dilakukan dari segi kelewatan mendapatkan rawatan
perubatan telah mengakibatkan kecederaan fizikal dalaman yang berlaku
terhadap Simati sehingga akhirnya mengakibatkan kematian Simati.
[37] Mahkamah ini putuskan ketiadaan Hudfurqan memberi keterangan
tidak sama sekali memberi kesan kepada kes Pihak Pendakwaan.
Mahkamah ini juga putuskan ketiadaan keterangan Hudfurqan tidak sama
sekali membawa kepada suatu keadaan suppression of evidence yang
menimbulkan ketakadilan kepada kedua-dua Perayu. Maka keputusan
HMS untuk tidak memakai s.114(g) terhadap Pendakwaan kerana
ketiadaan keterangan Hudfurqan adalah betul.
[38] Setelah saya meneliti segala keterangan, Alasan Penghakiman
HMS dan meneliti segala dokumen-dokumen dalam RR, saya
berpuashati bahawa HMS telah membuat keputusan yang betul semasa
memanggil kedua Perayu membela diri terhadap pertuduhan. Saya juga
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
dapati HMS telah meneliti segala keterangan pihak pembelaan dan
membuat keputusan yang betul di akhir kes Pembelaan dan membuat
dapatan dan rumusan yang betul menurut undang-undang semasa
mensabitkan kedua-dua Perayu dengan pertuduhan.
[39] Atas alasan itu, rayuan kedua-dua Perayu atas sabitan dan
hukuman adalah ditolak
RAYUAN PIHAK PENDAKWAAN
[40] Seperti yang telah Mahkamah ini rumuskan dalam perenggan di
atas, pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu jatuh dibawah kategori
pertama yakni mereka dituduh melakukan pengabaian terhadap kanak-
kanak tersebut secara sendiri dan bukan menyebabkan orang lain
melakukannya.
[41] Ini bermakna apabila kedua-dua Perayu disabitkan dengan
pertuduhan, maka hukuman hendaklah lebih berat berbanding jika
mereka disabitkan dengan pertuduhan bagi kategori kedua.
[42] Parlimen telah meminda hukuman di bawah s. 31(1) dengan
menaikkan jumlah denda dan penjara yang boleh dijatuhkan oleh
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
Mahkamah. RM20,000.00 dipinda kepada RM50,000.00 dan 10 tahun
dipinda kepada 20 tahun.
[43] Setelah meneliti fakta kes dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak mengenai
rayuan Pendakwaan, saya memutuskan untuk menaikkan hukuman
penjara yang diperintahkan oleh HMS dari 8 tahun kepada 10 tahun.
Memandangkan kedua-dua Perayu dibebaskan dengan jaminan selepas
permohonan mereka untuk hukuman digantung sehingga selesai rayuan
di hadapan Mahkamah ini dibenarkan oleh HMS, maka Mahkamah ini
memerintahkan supaya hukuman penjara terhadap kedua-dua Perayu
adalah bermula dari tarikh hukuman oleh Mahkamah ini dijatuhkan.
Perintah-perintah lain yang diperintahkan oleh HMS adalah dikekalkan.
Rayuan Pendakwaan adalah dibenarkan.
Bertarikh pada : 08 Februari 2024
-signed-
(MOHD RADZI BIN HARUN)
Hakim
Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
PIHAK-PIHAK :
Peguam Perayu-Perayu:
Dato’ Zaharman bin Zainal Abidin
Tetuan Fatin & Zaharman
No. A-5 Tingkat 2, Lorong Tun Ismail 9
25000 Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur
Pendakwa Raya/Responden:
Puan Ain Fadilla binti Md Ali bersama Puan Haryati binti Abdullah
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pahang
No. 402, Tingkat 4, Mahkota Square Jalan Mahkota
25000 Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur
S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 28,834 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-42S-24-12/2022 | PERAYU NUR FATIN NABILA BINTI AZMI RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya | rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - tiada mana-mana pihak yang membangkitkan isu sabitan di dalam petisyen - s.31(1)(a) akta kanak-kanak 2001 - okt membuat pengakuan bersalah - s.305 kanun tatacara jenayah - sama ada hukuman keterlaluan atau ringan - sama ada hakim mahkamah sesyen memberi pertimbangan faktor-faktor mitigasi serata kepentingan awam - sama ada hukuman penjara setimpal apabila terdapat hukuman denda - kesan pada mangsa dari segi fizikal dan emosi | 09/02/2024 | YA Dato' Norsharidah Binti Awang | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4ccd5076-a4fd-4103-b8ce-50815034aeaf&Inline=true |
09/02/2024 15:21:14
BA-42S-24-12/2022 Kand. 27
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
BA—42S—24—12/2022 Kand. 27
as/oz/mm ,5 2; 14
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SHAH ALAM
DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
RAVUAN JENAVAH No. BA-42H-33-I2/2022
ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAVA PERAVU
DAN
NUR FAYIN NAEILA awn AZMI RESPDNDEN
(No. K/F 98020241345014)
RAVUAM SILANG
IIIAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN. MALAVSIA
RAVUAN JENAVAH No. EA-425-24-11/2022
ANTARA
NUR FATIM NAEILA BINTI AZMI FERAVU
(Nu. K/P’ 980202-06-6014)
DAN
FENDAKWA RAVA RESPONDEII
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
I. PENGENALAN
Ini adaran mempakan vayuan Timbman Fendakwa Raya (Perayu)
terhadap hukumsn (Kandungan 15) den rayuan suang o\eh Ienudun
(OKT) jugs larhadap hukuman (Kandungan 22).
sw mnnrvzmnsazwcaunsum
E" W; Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm
II. PERTUDUHAN
Pertuduhan tamadap OKT adalah sepem benkul:
‘Bahawa kamu pads e Jun 2021 jam Islam kurang 10.30 pagi,
benempal an bmk um kanakkanak m Babes 3. Ton Chfldcare
Centre an avenue: Aras Bawah, Bkuk c, Kedlaman Kakllangan
Hosp\la\ Sevdang. Jaxan Puchong, 43000 KaJang, m dalam Daevah
Sepang, di dalam Megan Salangor Daml Ehsan. sebagal arena
yang mampunyal penlagaan ks acas kanakxanak yang bemama
Snfia Arm bin\i Muhammad Amman Al~Khair (No, MyKid: moo»
m—11au) berumuv 1 lawn a bulan. maapau le\ah mendedahkan
kanak—k.anak mu dengan cars mungkm menysbabkan keuederaan
flzikm lerhadsp kanak-kanak lersebut. Gish yang damikxan, kamu
cevah ms\akukan suam kaaavanan dan buleh dmukum di bawah
Seksyen 31(1)(a| Akla Kanak-Kanak 2001."
III. FAKYA KEs
[11 Fans kes adamh sebagaimana dinyalakan di dalam Nasan
Pengnmnan Hakim Mahkamah Sesysn (nuns; an muka
sursl 13 mngga 15, Rskod Rayuan mm I dun jugs pads
ekslhll F2, Rakod Rayuan Jwlid 3
Pengadu dw dalam kes wnl mempakan mu kepada mangsa
yang bemmur 1 (shun a bulan pada mesa kejadwan dan beliau
banugas sebagal Pegawai Pembatan dw Bahagwan Eumlngi dw
Hnspilm Ssrdang
aw aunwzxnnsmcaunsum
-ma Sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum Wm mu 2 M as
nngan dan dike! n. Peguam menquk kepada kes Tun Svl
Abdul Ruhlm Mohd Nnor v. PP [21101] : MLJ I.
[33] um damn: kes mvsebul, Paguam msnghujahkan bahawa
Ievdapal pnnsm yang menyahkan bahawa keadaan dw mans
kevarmngan swam sendm mewayarkan sssemang terluduh
Mu fldak dlmasukkan ke dalam penjara m da\am tempuh yang
panjang Kerana Ia akan membawa banyak keburukan
danpada kebaxkan,
mama seseumng pesalah mu am
merviadi neruenayah Iegar sflepas msnjalani hukuman
pamara
[371 Feguam sekali I391 berhujah dengan merujuk kapada
seksyen 3l11)(a) Am Kanak-Kanak‘
-Penganiayaan, vengabawan, pembuangan alau vandedahan
kanak-kanak
31. (1) Marla-mana mang, yang merupakan urang yang
mempunyav pernehharaan saeurang kanak-mak-
(a) yang msngamayah menganaman‘ membuang atau
mandedahkan kanak-kanak nu mu berlmdak
secara cum dengan cars yang mungkln akan
menyebabkannya mengaxamx kecaderaan fzika\
alau emusi atau yang rnenyebabkan alau
membenarkanm mamayai, disbaikan, dlhuang
alau didedahkan seaamman, alau
sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum
-um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ .nuN<: puns! P . u m 25
(b) yang mengsmayar nan saga seks kanawkanak nu
avau yang menyehahkan atau mambenarkannyzi
dianlayal sedemikwan.
memkukan suslu kesakahan dan apsbHa msamxkan
buloh dluonua lldnk m chihl liml puluh rihu
tlnggll snau mpamarakan semma tampon Iidak
mmehmi due p-mm Lahun acau kedua<1uanya.'
[as] Feguam huiahkan bahawa mat ulama Parnman Malaysia
da\am mengguhal undang-undang dan hukuman dw hawah
seksysn W adalah bag mjuan mehndungi kanak—kanak den
juga hukuman bsrbemuk denda adiflah hukuman yang
ulama‘
[391 on yang panama kah mluduh ai bawah seksyen imdanlidak
paman me\akukan apa—apa kesalahan jenayah m bawan
manamana undang-undang di Malaysxa.
[401 Femenjaraan sa\ama (smpah lapan aavas (15) bulan yang
dwksnakan ks alas on merupakan sualu hukuman yang
agank beta! bag: slluasx on
(411 Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (elah gage! mampemnmangkan
secara kesemmhan kesamua lakwrrfaklor mmgasi yang
re\evan yang memihak kepada Parayu/Respanden apawa
lelah memaluhkan hukuman.
[42] semasa dmuduh OKT hanyalah beruswa 23 vanun 4 bulan.
Kami percaya hahama wujud kepenuan unmk mahkamah
an auNrPzxAns4x\caunsum
-ma sum ...na.. MU be used m van; ..a an,n.u.y mm; dun-mm wa mum PM Me <2 nu-
mempsrumbangkan ksselunman faxcantaktor miligasx yang
berplhsk kepada om xermas-man (mar usla muda dan
laktnr-lakmr m gas! yang \am
[43] Dawn perkars W Psguam (elah merujuk kepada kes-kes Ru
Jam: an. Ram: [1155] 1 MLJ 55,- [1955] 1 ms 115,
Shnnmugnmlhnn VPublic Prosecutor [1957] 1 MLJ 204,-
Yea Thiam cnyu v Public Prosecutor 11952} 1 MLJ 391
ha * menuvuukkan bahawa oxr ssbag pesalah muda
dengan psnakuan kesa\ehan panama wafer dtbenkan
nukuman yang Iehm nngan
[441 Seierusnya damn menghujahkan agar hukuman Iebm ringan
dibsnkan kepada om, Feguam mengmuahkan hahawa
kecedsraan yang malamx men pihak pengadu adalah udak
serius dan fldak mempunyaw kesan yang berlamfan dan
pamang
[45] Dalam Isu Inl Feguam menghwahkan bahawa Laporan
Fembaian yang dflerima tidak menuruukkan kecederaan
teruk. um laporun Isngkap psmbalan dtkemukakan hanya
Lapomn Awal Pemanksaan sedangkan pengadu Ie‘|ah
membawa mangsa unluk rawatan kesihatan G? dUE hospim
masmgrmasmg dw Hospuan Sevdang dan Hospila\ Pengapir
Universwli Pulra Mzflaysla pads: 11 06.2021 flan 14.12 2021.
[45] Feguam psrcaya bahawa keuedensan yang amam. oleh
pengadu mam. Udak senus di mana kecedel-aan Ierssbut
marupakan bruises sahsp dan kscsderaan ssdem n Udak
sw auNrPzxAns4x\caunsum
'Nnl2 sum ...m.. WW .. used m van; M .m,m.u., mm; dun-mm VII mum W Page 1: M an
[47]
[45]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[521
sw auwvvzmnsmcaunsum
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
menlnggalkan sebarang parul kekm malah Iwdak jugs
menyehahkan kacacalan anggova badnn terhsdap mangsa.
Bsrkenaan dengan v-awalan Fslkiatn‘ Peguam hnqahkan
bahawa xamapae Ismpah enam (5) bulan se|e\ah keuadlun
barman mangsa mbawa unluk pemeriksaan dun ravmlan.
Menuml rekod mangsa hsdnr kall panama ks hopntal psikialn
aflsflah hanya pada1A.12.2(l21.
0\eh Mu sekivanya benar mangsa menghadapi masalah
psikiam my krilikm pasmah mangsa (Blah mbawa mum awav
unluk pemenksaan dsn awaken
Tempah s hulan sebelum rawayan Iurul diperlikax kerana
mungkinkah berlaku sesualu yang Iain damn: lsmpoh masa
lersebul sehmgga menyebabkan Vaporan Iersehul memam
udaklapal.
Lew. lanjul Peguam mengmuankan bahawn sepatmnya
rawaian mbual di Hospilifl Semang dan bukan m Hnspi1.a\
Pengajar Unlversm Pulra Mamysxa yang merupakan huspnaw
swasta dw bawah keiolaan pihak Universih Pulra Malaysia.
Peguam menquk kepada Eksibxl P23, muka suraI49. Rekad
Rayuan ma 3 [13:13 perenggall 5 yang menyalakan.
‘‘5‘ made ciricin Sofia mengala asilah a|au isu barman
kewewavan Derksmbangan, keeelsruan psrkemhangan samt
{nsum develop mental drsorders] dan sehagainya '
Plus .4 m :-
[521 Juslem, kelmuan mangsa rnandapalkan rawalan swa\ aw
kfimk aamam lsnabulmsmbukllkan mangsa max mengalaml
ssbarang ksoederaan mama! yang senus.
[541 Akhimya Peguam huiahkan bahawa Hakim Mahkamsh
Sesyen lelah gags! memberi usnimbangan sewayamya
lamadap laklor-laklar mmgas. on.
[55] Salem faklmusia muda ianu baruswa 23 xamm 4 bman semasa
kejauian. on zuga nanya bernendidikan Sijil Kemamran
Malaysia 1SKM) sahaja Klni on ndak bekena dan udak
mempunya\ psmiapalan (slap setslah dmementikan danpada
pusai Jagaan kanak-kanak Ievsebul
[551 OKT Iidak Dernah memvurlyaw rekod Jenaysh Iampau dan mu
adalah kesalahan panama behau. Mempakan anak hangsu
davipada lujuh (7) mang aavmzaramk dan linggal dengan
kakak befiau Eefiau mempunyai seurang bapa, berumur63
Iahun dan uaak bekena manaksfla mu kepada om Ielah
memnggal duma pads 23.5.2022 alubal penyakn kannmg
manis
[57] on ssbagaw ssorang anak parempuan yang hemm
berkahwm Isiah mengambH langgungjawab unluk
menggantlkan ternpal Ibunya den menjaga ayahnya an
kampung, Perak.
[53] OKT fidak hernia! mencedarakan mangsa, sudah msal dan
benanyi unmk Iidak mengulangl pemuacan sebegim
sw auwwzknasmcaunsum
-ma smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG mm ’W- '5 ='“
[59] Peguam OKT ken-umannya cewan mberikan kesempafan
untuk mumlaflkan hujahan vambahan berkenaan dengan
yambar-gambar flan rakaman CCTV.
[an] um kerana Umiakan acau pemuacan on yang didakwa Ielah
'mendera' flan/alau mexaxuxan perbualan ke1am (cruel
ksatmervt) fsrhadap mangsa/anak pengadu sepsmmana
yang mputuakan olsh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ada\ah udak
kansxstan flan henepatan yang maria fingkah Iaku OKT d1
dalam gambargambar pegurl ocrv lersebul. P161/A-G]
[511 Gambar- gambar pagun ccrv Iarsebut hanya memaparkan
keadaan Indwndu-Vndivldu u. dalam gambangamhar tersebm
lam: OKT den mangsa yang sanllasa bembah-ubah dafl segw
kedudukan/posxsx/pelgevaksn mereka dan Iidak ada
pemuatan penderaan yang dx Vakukan we?‘ on larhadap
mangsa.
[52] Ianya |angsung lidak mamaparksn sebarang perbuatan
berbahaya, bukamah perbualan 'mendera“ mangsa nan
bukanxan punca mama yang menyebahkan dan/alau
perbualan yang bmeh memnggalkan kesan nauma/kevakmnn
kepada mangsa
[63] Pemuacan-psmuaxan berkenaan adalah ndak kunsisten dam
sama sekali udak nulan/ndak dapat dlkailkan dengan
kwederaan menial (trauma) dan kecederaan fiflkal
sspemmana yang (elah auaporkan ax dalam Eksmhil P12(A—
syn auwwzmnsmcaunsum ,
-um Sum ...n.. wmlxeusedmvamImenv\g\ruHIyM1M5 m.u.m...num puns! “=9 '°”'
Hi dun iuga Laponln Pembalan mangsa (muka swat 47.52,
Rekod Rayuan mm 3).
[54] Seterusnya Feguam on menghulahkan bshawa rakaman
ccw iailu Eksxbil FZBKA) dan P2B(B) max peman
dwserahkan kepada oxr sabalum on msmhual psngakuan
sa\ah.
[55] lanya hananoangan dengan ssksyen 51A Kanun Tamara
Jena)/ah
[ea] Psguam meruluk kes Data‘ Sari Anwar bin Ibrahim Iwn
Fnndakwa Rays [201|'l] 1 MLJ 579‘ bemubung pemakaian
seksyen 51A Kanun Talacara Jena)/ah. Dw dalam kes ml‘
Yang Arii Hakim Mamkamah Tmggl Kuala Lumpur lelah
nuenmen dapalan befiau (erhadap kepentingan seksyen am
Kanun Talacara Jenayah as da\am memaslikan keaduan
Kepada semua pnhak
[67] Eksrbm 923(5) amanan pemlng bagx
msmbuklukan prima fauis case yang mann dckumen nu
ak pendakwaan untuk
mempakan lakta yang menyebelahi pmnk pendakwaan Gan
sekiranyn on tidak membuut psngakuan narsaxan dan mgin
msnemskan dengan pammaan. samssfinya dckumen
lersehul Vain: vniea ccw akan digunakan u\eh pandskws
dalam perbwcariirlv
[ea] AdsVah lldsk wajar Eksxbit P2815] dilandakan pads nan yang
sama on diialuhkan nukuman
an aunwzmnmxwcaunsum
-ma sum ...n.. MU be used m van; me an,n.n, MIN; dun-mm vu mum W ‘W W W N
[591 Ada\ah dwlegaskan bahawa video cc1'v Eksxbxl P28(B) yang
dipavcayai sebagax om adalah di akuv setakal kehamran
om dw damn video wrssbul. Wabubagaxmanapun om
menafikan bahawalerdapatpemua|an—perbua1an pendenaan
secara singkat a|au berparuangan yang di lukukan olsh pihak
OKT terhadap mangsa
[70] oven in secara ksswmpulannya Peguam menghujahkan
bahawa alas faktor-laktar an ass, Sena kecederaan yang
Hdak kelara‘ lerdapamya kelengahan sehingga enam (5)
hman unluk vawalan psmam meruyu agur hukuman (erhadap
on mkevepikan aluu sekuanya ak mbsnarkan‘ on
msmohon hukumsn berbenluk denda lidak max
jamman sebanyak RM 1o,oun.uu
wang
VI. DAPATAII MAHKAMAH
[71] Mahkamah um sekalx Vagi merujuk kepada Pensyen Rayuan
bagt keduadua kss. yang neran mvaivkan m da\am Rakod
Rayuan Tambahan, liada mama-mana pmak mambang
isu berksnaan dervgan ssnuan yang mkanakan ke atas OKT
an
[72] one
denuan sabwan dapal dibangkilkan a. dalam rayuan Ra vm
sek ' agv mtagaskan bahawa Mada isu berksnaan
Alasan Panghaklman mi akan nanya merujuk kepada raynan
mmauap hukuman sahafi.
[73] Rwukan kepada asksyen 305 Kanun Talacara Jenayah
adalah sepem berikut:
sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum
-um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ mum puns! Fun ‘I M 2|
‘When plea of guuty lwmned ngm of appsaV
When an accused has pleaded guilly and been eonmea by
a Magistrate that men, there shaH be appeal m<oep\ as to me
exfenl Of Iegewy ol the sentence "
U4] Merujuk Kepada ks: Rex v. Bull 35 Cr. Ann R. 134:
vn me firs! place, we Court does nez after e sentence
which is me subject of en appeal merely because one
members of the Coufl might have passed 8 drffslsnr
sentence The ma] judge has seen me pnsonev and
heard ms hisfury and any wrtnssaes m character he may
neve enesen to ca//. me only when e senzenee appears
err In principle [hat (his Court will alter if [M sentence ls
excessive orilv adsquala to such an extent as lo sausly
we Court that when n was passed mere was e reume Iv
app/y me ngm prmcip/ss, men Ilws com will intervene.
/n ueerarng me sppmplfals sentence e cum should
always be guided by cellam considerations The firs!
and Iorsmosf rs me pub/M: mlsmsr.‘
:75} Ss|emsnya dalam msnenlukan suatu nukumen, pnnsip an
dalam kas PP v. Loo Chuun Fall [1919] 2 IIILJ 25¢ ada!ah
diteliu seWni bsrikul.
Wham Hashim veop sam'./ (es mi men was) was ofma
View mar (‘Presidents and Magistrates are onen
inclined quite naturally to be avez—sympameo'c to ma
syn annrvzxansmcaunsum
% "Nara Snr1n\n:uhnrw\HI>e used m van; .. en,n.n, mums m.n.n vu mum Wm! Far I m N
accused. This re a normal psyehelogrealraactien to the
siluat/an In whlch the lonely accused ls seen leerng an
array at witnesses wrth authollry. The mlligarlon
auhrnitteu by a eonvretedperson wlll also normally errng
up problems of lernlly hardslvlp and the other usual
prob/ems plllving. ln such a smratron the courts might
perhaps find lt mmeult to decide es lo whet sentence
should he imposedso thattne eonvretetlperacn maynal
be lurther burdened wllh addltlollsl hardship. This in my
View re a wrong approach. The correct approach ls ta
strike a balance, as lar as possible, between the
lnlslssts oflhs public and the rnterests olthe accused’
[76] Mahkamah in: nuerutuk kee on La! Kim v. Public
Proucuter[1w1]:IlI|.l111
‘The Court wl//be leilrng in it: duryifir does no! impose
a deterrent sentence in this case The gulllshmanl must
not only date! the appellants from Damm/fling 5 sfrlular
offence in Ms Iumra bill It must also deter nrhsrs from
cammilfing such an Ufi87IC9....
/rl this case thsrsfbrs the punishment has to be
sufllclenlly harsh and propanronete [0 the harm done,
otherwise society will leel that the ptrnrshrnenl ls
rnenilestly inadequate. The punishment must also
relleet public dlseppmval cf the crime committed by the
appsllanls. see R v Roberts [1992] 1 All ER 60 at 61.‘
SW aDm'PzhAns4xtcauDsurw
% -we e.n.t ...nmn be ts... m van; .. m,n.u., aunts mmn ta mum W Pm "1 M"
[21 on pula adavan Pembanlu Taaka m‘ Taska Babes 5. Tots
chuucare Centre, Aras Bawah. wok c. Kamaman Kaklxangan
Hospman Serdang, .la\an Puchong, moo Kzuang, Selsngnr.
[3] Menurul pengadu, pads 86.2021 baHau |e\ah menghamar
anaknya pads jam 7.50 pagn unluk uaga oleh OK7 di (aska
l.ersabu|
[41 Kemudwannya pads jam 2.50 penang, on Ielah
memaklumkan kepada Fangadu hahawa mangsa lelsh
mengaflami keeederaan pads pm Vuka dan kedua belah mata
d1 hahaglan bawah Iuka serla lebam CKT mamhsnvahu
pengadu bahawa lsnuduh lidak perasan mengenai Vuka
lerszbut dun hanya sedar sslspas mendengar mangsa
menangws.
[51 Fakta selsmsnya adalah berkailan dengan usaha Fengadu
mendzpalkan dun menonlon rakaman CCTV 'da|am tasks
berkenaan. Melalul raksman cow yang dmanda sebsgsu
Eksvbil P1415), pengadu memiapau bahawa anaknya (srah
dwpsrlakukan dengan kasar dan ganas.
[5] Lanju|an an nu, pengadu lelah membawa mangsa ke
Bshagian Kecamasan, Haspilm Serdang pm 9 D6.2D21‘]am
1 JD pagi
m Rujuk Eksxhit FZD mu Laporan Perubatan dan Hnspxtal
Serdang, m muka Surat ea Rekud Rayuan Jana 3, mm: yang
sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum
-um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG mm m. x m 2.
U7] D1 detanu kes R V. Hamil: [law] 1 All ER 541 tellen
dipuluskan hahawa:
‘Courts should always bsar tn rnlnd lnat mmlnal
sentences were in almost every case tnlenae-1 to protect
the pub/t'c, whether by punishing me alrender or
reion-mng turn, 01 by deterring mm and utllers, or by all
of mass lnlngs Comte cannnt and should rm! be
tmmmdlul L7! the important public mmenslen of mnunal
sentencing and the lntponenee of mamlslnlrlg putzlls
cunfidence lrl lne sentenclng system.‘
ma] Manakala berkenaan dengan bidang kuasa rayuan, pnnsip
kas H: v. Llnu Len Ho. [2015] 4 cu m‘ dlpuluskan
bahawa:
The appellate calm can and will inlerfevs In tne
sentence imposed by me lows! caun mt ls satlsfisd met
any anne fc//owmg Iour gmunds are made out.
(5) The sentenarng [udgs had made a wrong declston
es to me proper faclualbasls for tne sentence.
(DJ There had been an em)! on me pen DI the trial
/udgs tn appnactaflng the material facts placed
before film.’
(0) The sentence was wrong ln prlnclple; ov
la) The sentence lmposed was manrieslly excessne or
lnat1aquala.'
an auNrP2kAns4xtcaunsum
fl ‘Nata smut ...n.Mn be ts... m van; .. .n,nn., mt. dun-mnl VII mum W F‘-we 11 at 1-
V9] Mahkamah mi merujuk kapada Alasan Psnghakiman cleh
Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen an muka suraI11 mngga as. Rekcd
Rayuan Jmd 1 dan berseluju (emadap a\asan-a\assn
mbenkan hukuman yang amenkan ke alas on.
[an] Di aawam msmbual kapulusan lamadap hukuman, Hakim
Mahkamah sesyen |e\ah memmbang semua Vaklur
Iarrnasuklah memaluhi kehandak undsngmndang,
kspenhngan awam, pangakuan bersalah on lak\or—Vakwr
mmgasi dan mjukan lemadap beherapa kes yang bersamaan
[s11 seam asasnya rzryuan lerhadap hukuman yang amujanxan
Meh on ada\ah kersna saksyen yang dxperluduhkan
Ierhadap om hdak mewajlbkan hukuman penjara sebahknya
membenarkan hukuman denda dwkenakzn,
[32] Dalam isu mi adaksh bermakna hukuman yang le\ah
dvkenakan kn alas OKT ada\ah salah Ruwk kepada seksyan
1730:) Kamm Tatacava Jenayah (Akla 59311
-(17) Jika |enuduh mengsku sa\ah alas penuduhan nu, sama
ada da\am bentuk asamya acau yang dipinda‘ akuan mu
hendaldah dwrekndkan dan ma blfleh disabxlkan atasnya dan
Mahkamah hendaklah menialuhkan hukuman menwkul
undang-Imdang:"
[931 Berdasarkan seks‘/en :11(1)Ia)A1<1a Kanak-Kanak, hukuman
yang bmeh dqaluhkan |emadap on ada\ah ‘.apab'1\a
msahllkan ho\sh didemia lldak mevehmu hma puluh nbu ringgn
sw anNrPzxAns4x1caunsum
-ma 5.11.1 ...m.. WW be .15.. m mm 1.. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm >=a- 12 0' 1-
atau dxpemarakan sslama Iempuh «ask mslebmi dua punm
vahun alau keduaduanya ~
[941 Sebagalmsna dmyalakan pads perenggan 22 Nasan
Penghaldman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, di muka sum la
.mia 1. Rakud Rayuan yang Ialah menuuk kepada kes Lolllln
Busmun v Public Pro-acueor man: 5 mm 211, ‘alas
bahswa spams uaaanya hukuman mandalnu dmyalakan.
haknm mempunyaw bud! mam unmk mengenakan hukuman
yang bersesuaxan dengan kesawanan dam on
[as] (Nah nu, Mahkamah mi bersemu Ham Mahkamah Sesyen
uaak me\akukan kasawahan apanua mengenakan hukuman
penjara flan bukan hukuman denda lerhadau DKT
[35] Hukuman Denjara yang dikenakan a\eh Hskxm Mahkamah
sesyen sexexan behau menimbangkan Kesalahan yang
anakukan alsh om, kepenlmgan awam dan lakwr-faklcr
mifigasi.
[an Hakxm Mahkamah Sesyen telah menuhs berkenaan dengan
perkara mi secara kcmprehenswfpada muka sure! 19 Mnpga
35
[aa] Mahkamah mu lurm meneliti Iemadap lakmr mmgasi
kepenlmgan awam dalam memuuusm unruk mengekalkan
hukuman mg dijaluhkan men Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen.
sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum
-um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm Pm 15 M1-
[as] Mahkamsh mangambu laK|cr»lak|or m\ligas< yang amenxan
msh OKT bshawa hsfiau adalah hanya bemmur hanya 23
vamm A bman semasa kejaman, berkamlusan sm. snak
bnngsu nan sepalulnya membanlu keluarga msncan nafkah
kerani masmah xasmanan hapanya. Vbunya Ielah meninggal
duma dsn beflau lsrpaksa bemndak mamaga bapanya
Selspas kejadwan befiau aikanaxan sudah musk bekena
[901 Pm mass sama Mahkamah peflu mmangi dengan
kepenlmgan swam. CKT hukan sahaja Iemba| dl GHVEVVI kes
yang meunatkan saurang kanak-kanak yang hanya beruswa 1
Iahun a buhan mam-an behau benugas dx puss! 1agaan yang
diamanahkan untuk msmaslikan Jagaan temam bagl anak
Ierssbul.
[911 Ka,aman sepeni . karap berlsku den masysrakal panu
dituniukkan pengajaran peflakuan ganas aana pangabauan
oamaaap kanak-kanak sdalah suam yang |idak bavk dan perlu
dxkenakan lmdakan tsgas bukan setakal pembayaran denda
sahala.
[92] Melahn r-akaman ccw .1. Exam 1223(5) menuniukkan
psflakuan on msmukul sarla menghempas mangsa ke
Iamav dan wenya aaavan salu tindakan yang max wajar
Iarhadap mangsa yang hanya herusna 1 (ahun a bman
[93] mm mamnu pemmbangan adalah iaklor kecedevaan
Iemadap mangsa. Wilaupun geguam on menghujahkan
bahawa Mada Keoedsman flzlka1 yang leruk lerhadap
aw aunwzxansmcaunsum
-ma sum ...ua.. MU be used m van; ..a agm.u., MIN; dun-mm Va nF\uNG W has 1‘ M Z-
mangsa‘ «exam ianya masih suam kecedeman Iarhadap
searang kanak»kanak yang mak boksh mevawan
[94] Merujuk kepada rskod parubalan psfldalri (1iE|s\bitP23 muka
xural 51 dan 52. Rekeu Rayuan ma 3. jevas menunjukkan
dapaxan nleh Fegawaw Pevubaan bahawa mangsa
menga\amikeua1aman sues pzsca trauma (PTSD) dan wanya
memberi Kesan (erhadap perkembangan kognnif, emosw
Imgkah laku mangsa Axmamya ihu mangsa sacrang
Pegawal Perubacan larpaksa bemenli kena unmk
lllemaganya bagi menjaganya
[951 Peguam menghwahkan bahawa tampon masa sebelum
rawaian pmkialri ml auaxukan msnunjukkan hahawa uadanya
masa\ah senus kepaaa mangsa Walau pun Mahkamah Udsk
menjumpax alasan mengapa kewewacan ml Ierjadi, telapw xanya
paslilah alas «em: mangsa dan keluarga mu senam daVam
menangani «muma PTSD lsrsebul.
[96] In: aapamimmuskan melalui lapor-an Hnsi|a\ Psiklaln Iemshm
pads Eksmm P23 tsrsebut.
[97] Trandlerk keskesmehba|kankesalahandibawahseksyan
30(1)(a| Akfia Kanak-kanak menuruukkan [rend hukuman
yang sam.
[93] Eardasarkan kepeda alasan-axasan di mas Mahkaman um
mendapam bahawa hukuman yang «swan dhaluhkan ulah
sw annvvzxansmcaunsum
% Wane s.n.‘...u..Mm.w....nmy....mm,.mm..u.m...num W P -W"
Hakim Eicara adalah adil flan ssumpax yang mana Mahkamah
in dak perlu un|uk menguhah penmah Isrsebui
[99] Hakim mesa fiada malakukan spa-spa krmaman segv (akta
flan urmang-undang. Huxuman (s\ah dussmlhangkan dengan
fakior-lakmr rayuan alsh om dan juga kepevmngan swam
[100]Mahkamah wn mengekmkan venmah Hakim Mahkamah
Sesysn benankh 20.11.2022. O\sh Mu Rayuan Fandakwa
Raya (erhadap hukuman dan rayuan sflang u¥eh Tenuduh
ada\ah dmflak
Mahkamah Tmggx Jenayih (7) Shah
Bevlankh 3i
Pmsk-pmak:
Pen-ayu/Respam1an—
Tuan Lnkman bin Kaiim
[Pejabac TimbaVan Pendakwa Raya Negen sewangml
Responden/Perayu»
uik lllohd Faris Synzwan bln hinuuamlnl
Mohammad Shafiq bin Muhammad Laxlm
[Tetuan Namrl Mahmud. Fans 5. Nadia]
sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Pm 1' M 2'
merewel mangsa menyalakan hahawa marlgsa rriengeleirii
keoeoereeri seperli berikul.
"Pemerlksaan Flslkal (Physical Exerriirieiiorri:
Alan, pink, ::n< zsees, good pulse volume. warm peripneriee,
not (achypneic
Upper limbs. bruises over rigrrr elbow -lerii.
Lower limbs‘ rrrillrirrie bruises over laileierel iiiigri. aria rigm
eeil -leiri ska linear eereieh mark over rlgm cheek ~acrii,
pelacrilae bilateral lower eyelid.“
ls] selaniuzriya rujuk Lapcrsn Perubeleri Exsloil F21 di mukai
surai M, Rekod Rayuan Jllid 3:
Mulllple ecers noise.
1 2am and Liam linear eoresiori over me riglil cheek.
2 Bruise aver irie riglii lower eyelld. radish in colour, size
around 2cm.
3 Bruise over lelerel aspect cf lefl proximal radius, yellow
gmanlsh in oolour erio srze 05cm x 0.59m.
4 Bruise over leu rriidsriin, yellow greenish iii wioul and
size 1cm x «cm
5 Bruise uvsr leii medial Hugh, yellow greenish iri mlour
and size zorri x iorri.
6 Bmise aver rlgm medial lmgn, yellaw greenish in colour
and sIZe< u.5ciri.
7 Bruise over right rriidsriin. yellvw greeriieri in colour and
size 1 cm x 0 5cm.
SIN aDNl'PzlrAns4zlcaul3surw
-roe Sunni In-vlhnrwfll be used e mm ms nrwlruilly mi. dun-mm via nFluNG rm rue. A 91 ac
[0] Pengadu Iurul membual salu Laponan P3115 yang dwandakan
ssbaga|Eks1hilP3 darn balsh Lflrujuk di muka sm-am, Rekod
Rayuan mm 3.
[101 on lslah dwluduh di Mahkamah Sssyen Sepang pads
21.05.2021 flan diluduh uz bawah seksyen 3l(1)|a) ma
Kanak Kanak 2001.
[11] Kes \e|aI1 anecapkan unluk kncava pemm kali perlama pads
13.07.2021 selslah rsprssamasi on mwlak namun
dwangguhkan unluk OKT memiailkan plea bargammg den
xamumannya pada 21.09.2022 drmaklumkan hahawa plea
bargaining yang dipahnn lelah mxolak
(121 Pads wikh mam selamulnya imlu 30112022, on le\ah
mengaku salah (erhadap penuduhan dun Halum Mahkamah
Sesyen telah menarima dan merekodkan uengakuan sa\ah
on Ruiuk muka swat 17 hingga 22 Rekod Rayuan Jvhd 2.
[13] men nu DKT (elah mdapau barsalah flan disabnkan dengan
Imkuman d1 bawah seksyen 31(1)(a) Akla Kanak-Kanak
sspemberikur
11) FenjaIa15 bulan davi vankh mun hukum
(11) OKT nendakvan sempumakan ban berkelukuan hawk
dengan jumhah jamman bemagarsebanyak RM5,0D0,DD
dengan ssulang pslqamin h5g1 tempo?! salama dua (2)
lahun di bawah seksyen 31(2)(a) Akla Kanak-kanak.
Lnpar dun d1 Ba|a1PoIis berhamuiran lempat nnggav OKT
sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum
10.2 5.11.1 ...m.m11 be used .2 mm 1.. 0011.11-y mm. dun-mm VI] .r1uNG pm Pan: 5 n. is
seuap salu hanbulan sefiap bulan sepamang dua cam
fzrsebut se|e\ah sewesav menjalsni hukuman penjara
(m) om mxenenaakz melaksanakan Pevimah Kmdmat
Masyarakal selama (empeh seratus enam puluh (160)
]am agnagat dengen psmanlauan Pegawax Kebapkan
Masyarakal dakxm Iempoh enam 16] bman dad lankh
penniah se\aras dengan pemmukan as hawah seksyen
31(2)(n) Akca Kanak-kanak.
W. HUJAHAN PENDAKWA RAVA
[14] Rujuk kenada Peusyen Rayuan bag! ksduadua kes. yang
wan dwankan an dalam Rekod Rayuan Tambahan‘ (iada
mana-mans pmak msnmangknkan wsu berkenaan dsngan
satman yang dikenakan ke alas OKT
[15] Rujuk pula kepada Nola Ksterangan a. da\am Rekod Rayuan
Jflld 2 G1 muka sum: 17. OKT telah mengaku sa\ah (erhadap
penuduhan yang amacaxan. om iuga telah duersngkan den
amamxan swan dan aklbat pengakuannya man on masm
mengaku salah. on jugs ada rflwakfli o\eh Peguam semasa
pengakuan sa\ah Iersanut dan wanya dmuax lanpa syaral.
us] Dleh nu ma isu berkanaan dengan sabilan dapat
tflbangkltkan til dalam myuan kes ink
[17] Pmak pendakwaan an dalam Pemsyen Rayuan di muka sursl
5 mngga 9, Rakad Rayuan Tambahan menyaxakan aVasan
mengapa Timbakln Pendakwa Rays hdak berpuas nan
sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum
-um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG Wm! mg u mi
dengan kapulusan yang diberikan oien Hakim Mahkamah
sesyen
[18] Secara nngkasnya, pihsk pendakwaan msnyalakari bahswa
hukumen yang diberikan terlampau ringan (mannaauy
inadequate) ks atas OKT bagi kesai.-man di bawah seksyen
31(I)(a)Akta Kanik-Kanak 2001.
[19] Hukuman W dibsrikan Ianpa mengambii Kira gravliti
kesaianan sens kekeriapavi beflakunya Kesalahan seumpania
IN kebeiakangan Ini flan ienamaau mengimbil Kira fnklcr
pengakuan salah oien on
[20] Tlada sabararig special cncunisiances yang boien
menjuslmkasi hukuman-hukuman yang rsndah Isrsebul
diberikan Kepada OKT dan is amallah Udak berpadanan unluk
menjaga kepenlirlgarl awam den menjadi iakmi deterrence
sens Dengaiaran kepada on uan aakai pesaian (woi.IId—be
offends!) yang lain.
[21] Di daiam nuianan raynannya, pihak pendakwaan
merighuiahkan bahawa Hakim Bicara gagai mengambi
kessluruhan lakia kes dengan lelill dslam menenmkan
hukuman yang 5%suai tevhadap OKT
[221 Selemsaya menyaiakan bahawa Akia Kansk-Kanak 2001
men
vat kanalvkanak sehagai kunci ksniaupan.
pembangunan dan kemakmuran masyarakal yang sekahgus
mengakui bahawa kanak-kanak men-enukan peninaungan
pemahharaari flan bariluan khas sslspas kelamnan unluk lurul
SIN auNrPzxAns4xicaunsum
-nag a.n.i In-vihnrwm be used M mm a. nflflinnflly MIN: dun-mm y.. arium mm P-w 7 M 26
sena dawn flan menyumbang secara posmt ka arah
memhenluk suam masyavakal Ma\ay:As yang unggul.
[23] Mangsa adakm kanak-kanak yang herumur 1 (ahun s bman
yang mama maslh sangal muda darn (idak msmpunyai apa-
apa ksupsyaan unluk mehndungw mrinya. Manakala on
ada\a7I Fambanlu Taska yang sudah devmsa dun
diamanahkan unluk menjaga mangsa
[24] Fmak pendakwaan m da\am rayuannya msrujuk kepada
muka sural 5, ma 3 Reknd Rayuan bagi menurwkkan betxpa
ksiamnya perlakuan OKT Ierhadap mangsa
[25] Tmdakan ganas (emadap mangsa yang dihmahkan o\eh
Pendakwa Raya adalah dengan menemx rakaman CCTV
adalah
m on (elah menoederakan mangsa dengan kasar sena
benindak ganas dengan Cara menghempas mangaa ks
mam, menarik hangan dan menampar peha mangaa.
(H) Femsnksaan pemuaxan lemadap mangsa mendapan
mangsa msngalalm keuederaan fizlkal yang pelbagaw
Uapursn perubalan :11 make sure: 37dan 41 Jim 3 Rekod
Rayuan dimjuk)
(HI) Pamanksaan pamnan |smadap mangsa mendapau
mangsa mengalami kecekuruan slress pasca trauma dan
keadaan Ierssbul «elm: memberikan kssan bukan hanya
kepada psrkembangan sma -aeaual, xogmm dan
lmgkahlaku mangsa, ma\ahan ibu bapa dan keluargi Jllga
Iurul nemesan bwamana ibu mangsa Ierpaksa bemanu
aw aum'PzxAns4x\cauDsum
-ma Sum ...ua.. WW be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Fri: a mu
kena ksvana keadaan emusi mangsa yang tidak soabiv
(Iaparan perubaxan di muka sure! 44 den 46 Jilid 3 Rekod
Rayuan mmuk)
[25] Mangsa mengaxamu trauma keoewuan suass pasca trauma
dan kaadaan terssbul «slan membenkan kesan bukan hanya
kepaaa perkembangan emosx, swan, kognmv dan lingkahlaku
mangsa
[27] Fendakwaan luvu\ barman bahawa pmdaan kepada Akla
Kanak—KarIak Dada Blwn 2016 dengan menaikkan hukuman
dsnda danpada RM2o,ooa.oo ka RM50,000 oo dan (ampoh
hukuman pemara duamban daripsda an lahun ke 20 Oahun
msmbayangkan swkap Parhman msmandang beral a|as
kesalahan per-deraan Ierhadav kanak—kanak
[23] Permakwaan manghxqahkan baharwa salu hukuman banal
hams\ah dmenxan agar pengmaran diberikan bukan sav-a;a
kevada csnuauh, mamh orang lam supaya Iidak melakukan
kesalahan yang sama an masa hadapan
[291 Pendakwa Rays memohun supaya hukuman lemadap on
dlkelepikan dan mganlikan dangan sa|u hukuman yang Vebih
Imggn.
V. HUJANAN FEGUAM
[so] Peguam on L1! da\am hujahannya luml menyatakan bahawa
Hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara adalah
sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum
-ma Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm ua nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm Plea u ulzl
manrfesr/y excessive dan bmeh mkalakan bsrsflat banenman
la\ah dlhukum (erhadap Psrayu dan/atau Respondan.
[313 Peguam rnenghumhkan bahawa dsngan Jabs :1! dalam
seksyen 31mm Ana Kanak-Kanik zoo: lsrsabux. benluk
hukumsn yang panama yang ax perunlukkan adalah hukuman
berbemuk dends wm ads\ah jslas memmjukkan bahawa
kesalahan m bahawa sexsyen mi adamh salu kesalahan yang
wen m denda.
[32] Hukuman bevbanluk pemara pma adalah merupakan saw
when apabna dinyalakan sehagai “almf sekiranya hukuman
penjara adalah Vebih bersesuawan diksnakan kepada psrayu
danlalau responden d‘ dalam Kes In‘.
[33] Dawn wsu ini Peguam OKT ssvarusnya menghujahkan
hahswa hukuman Dams:-a jug: bo\eh msyaralkan haIsama-
sama hukuman denda seklranya perayu gagal unmk
membayar denda yang akan m kanakan oxen Hakwm
Mahkamah Sesyen
[34] OKT meVa|u7 naslhal yang telah d1 berikan uleh pihflk Deguam
(shah menukar pengakuan bagi tujuan memudahkan prose:
dw Mahkamah Perbuzaraan an Mahkamah flan dengan Nat
Imluk mermapalkan Sam hukuman berbentuk denda dan OKT
bersedxa unluk hukuman denda tersebul
[35] Peguam menghmahkan banawa Kepenlmgan seseorang
lenuduh dw dalam sesuam kss iuga lidak bo\eh m pindang
sw auwvvzmnsmcaunsum
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm m. In mu
| 3,414 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-A71KJ-18-07/2022 | PLAINTIF Kerajaan Malaysia DEFENDAN 1. ) AZEMAN BIN HAIRUDIN 2. ) SPANCO SDN BHD | running down case - Government motorcycle involved with a collision with a motorcar - liability is set for 100% against the Defendant - However Plf is only awarded nominal sum due to the Plaintiff's failure to prove their claims for special damages. | 09/02/2024 | Puan Shairil Farhana Binti Ruslan | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1c6cd1bf-c5f7-48bf-ae70-1ab5c491cf22&Inline=true |
1
IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR
CIVIL SUIT NO..: WA-A71KJ-18-07/2022
BETWEEN
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
…PLAINTIFF
AND
1. AZEMAN BIN HAIRUDIN
[I/C NO.:630125-01-6679]
2. SPANCO SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO..172957-U]
…DEFENDANTS
GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. The Plaintiff’s claim arises from a road accident that had occurred along Jalan
Tun Razak heading from Pusat Bandar towards Jalan Duta on 29.7.2019 at about
1.30pm. On the day of the accident, Sergeant Kamaluddin Bin Jalal, was driving the
Plaintiff’s vehicle (WPP 4529) while conducting his rounds along Jalan Tun Razak.
09/02/2024 09:54:35
WA-A71KJ-18-07/2022 Kand. 30
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
The road was congested with traffic and at one point, Sergeant Kamaluddin had
stopped his car behind another car. Suddenly, the Defendant’s car, a Proton Preve
(W7066L) came from behind and hit the Plaintiff’s car from the back. Due to this
collision, the Plaintiff’s car was damaged, and the Plaintiff is now claiming for the cost
of repairs amounting to RM16,600.00 from the Defendant.
2. After a day of trial and after hearing the submissions from both parties, and on
the balance of probabilities, this Court decided to only allow a portion of the Plaintiff’s
claims with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff.
3. To be specific, this Court finds that the Defendant is to be held 100% liable for
negligently causing the accident, however this Court only allowed a nominal sum of
RM10.00 of damages to the Plaintiffs.
4. Not satisfied with this Court’s decision, Plaintiff has now filed a Notice of Appeal
against this Court’s decision on the issue of quantum (only) on 20.12.2023. Here are
this Court’s grounds of decision on the issue of quantum.
5. At trial, Plaintiff had called a total of 2 witnesses while the Defendant did not
call any witnesses. The list of witnesses is as follows;
Name of Witness Role Label Witness
Statement
Sofiyuddin Bin Zakaria Representative
from
SP1 PSSP1
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Worksyop,
Jabatan Kerja
Raya
Sergeant Kamaluddin Bin Jalal Driver of
Plaintiff’s
vehicle
SP2 PSSP2
B. THIS COURT’S GROUNDS OF DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF QUANTUM
6. Before this Court goes into the basis of this Court’s decision on the issue of
quantum, I will briefly state the law with regards to special damages. It is an
established principle of law where special damages is to be pleaded specifically and
proven strictly. Reference is made to the case of Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood
[1983] 2 MLJ 324 in where the Federal Court Judge, His Lordship Syed Agil Barakbah
(as he was then) said as follows :
“It is a well-established principle that special damages in contrast to general
damages have to be specifically pleaded and strictly proven. They are
recoverable only where they can be included in the proper measure of damages
and are not too remote (see Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th edition, volume 11
page 218 [ara 386). That in our view is the cardinal principle adopted by all
courts both in England and this country. The same principle was adopted by
Ong Hock Thye, FJ (as he then was) in Yee Hup Transport & Co and Anor v
Wong Kong [1967] 2 MLJ 93 which was an appeal on quantum of damages.
Quoting an excerpt from the judgment of Wilmer LJ in Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 1
WLR 991; [1963] 2 All ER 879 he held that general damages should not be
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
awarded as though they were special damages properly pleaded and proved.
Similiarly Chong Swee Pian [1980] 1 MLJ 216 applied the principle in Ilkiw v
Samuels (supra) that special damages if pleases as in that case could be
recovered. The principle was also adopted by Mohamed Azmi, J (as he then
was) in Sam Wun Hoong v Kader Ibramshah [1981] 1 MLJ 295 in the Federal
Court.
The reason that special damages have to be specifically pleaded is to comply
with its object which is to crystallise the issue and to enable both parties to
prepare for trial (per Edmund Davies, LJ in Domsalla v Barr [1969] 1 WLR 630,
635. In special damages claims the exact loss must be pleaded where the
precise amount of item of damages has been become clear before the trial
either because it has already occurred and so become crystallised or because
it can be measure with complete accuracy (MacGregor on Damages 14th
edition page 1012 para 1498). The purpose is to put the defendants on their
guard and tell them what they have to meet when the case comes on trial (per
Cotton, LJ in Phillips v Phillips (1878) 4 QBD 127,139”.
7. Reference is also made to the book Fundamentals of Running Down And
Personal Injury Litigation where the author Jeyaseelan Anthony, at page 198-200 had
listed the 4 elements that had to be fulfilled in every claim for special damages :
“6.2 SPECIAL DAMAGES
[6.007] Four elements must be satisfied to constitute special damages:
1. It is a damage which is actually suffered before the trial.
2. It is capable of precise quantification.
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
3. It must be specifically pleaded in the statement of claim.
4. It must be proved either by receipts or some other evidence.”
8. In this instant case, this Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claim for special damages
cannot be granted in full due to its non-fulfillment of elements 2 and 4 of the elements
stated in the paragraph above.
9. For the element of ‘It must be capable of precise quantification’, reference is
made to the testimony given by Encik Sofiyuddin (SP1) who was holding the post of
Jurutera Mekanikal Gred J41 at JKR Worksyop Persekutuan at the time the Plaintiff’s
vehicle was sent for inspection. SP1 stated that the inspection was carried out by a
subordinate (Pembantu Kemahiran) and that subordinate’s findings is later verified by
himself. SP1 concedes that he personally did not carry out the inspection, however he
is able to verify the findings of the inspection as he was present at the location when
the inspection was carried out. Reference is made to his testimony as below:
“DF Encik Sofi, sebelum membuat pengesahan di dokumen di muka surat
5, dokumen di muka surat 5 dan 6 di Bundle C, adakah Encik Sofi telah
memeriksa kenderaan tersebut sebelum membuat pengesahan?
SP1 Saya menyaksikan pemeriksaan.
1DF Soalan saya adakah Encik Sofi memeriksa kenderaan tersebut sebelum
membuat pengesahan?
SP1 TIdak
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
DF Setuju dengan saya, Encik Sofi mengesahkan anggaran kerosakan
tersebut hanyalah berdasarkan penilaian oleh pembantu kemahiran
dan juga penolong jurutera? Setuju?
SP1 Saya minta ulang.
DF Encik Sofi mengesahkan anggaran kerosakan tersebut hanyalah
berdasarkan penilaian oleh pembantu kemahiran dan juga penolong
jurutera?
SP1 Ya, saya. “
10. In gist, it was another individual who had carried out the inspection and
prepared a report listing the damages, SP1’s task was only to verify it. Based on his
verification, a total of 26 damaged parts needed to be repaired or replaced on the
Plaintiff’s vehicle. The estimated cost of repairs assessed by SP1 amounted to
RM16,600.00.
11. Based on this Court’s assessment of SP1’s testimony and documents tendered
through him, this Court finds that basis which SP1 used to assess the cost of damages
is unclear/unexplained. As stated above, SP1 did not personally carry out the
inspection, he merely verified the findings. SP1 stated that there were pictures taken
to show proof of the damages listed, but after the defence counsel showed him each
and every photo, SP1 himself admitted that most of the listed damages cannot be
seen / shown in the pictures appended.
12. Next, reference is made to ‘Borang Kerosakan’ (P2, page 6) under ‘Perkara
Kerosakan’ where SP1 had listed out all 26 items that needed to be repaired or
replaced. For items 1 until 23, it is noted that the items are to be replaced whereas for
items 24 to 26, it is noted that the items could be repaired. However, there is no
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
statement or notation stating how much each and every item would cost. There is only
a statement at the bottom of the document stating “Anggaran Tafsiran Pembaikan :
RM16,600.00”.
13. When questioned by the Defendant’s counsel as to how he had come up with
the estimation of repairs, SP1 had answered as below:
“DF En Sofi saya rujuk Encik Sofi kepada soalan 9 yang menyatakan
bagaimanakah anggaran tafsiran pembaikan seperti yang anda
nyatakan di dalam Borang Laporan Kerosakan tersebut dibuat? Dan
Encik Sofi telah menyatakan telah kenderaan tersebut yang telah
menyatakan telah merujuk kepada data dan rekod yang boleh didapati
di dalam rekod kami untuk melihat julat (“range”) harga bagi setiap
bahagian kenderaan. Encik Sofi merujuk kepada rekod apa ya?
SP1 Rekod kerosakan untuk kenderaan jenis Proton Waja.”
14. SP1 states that his estimation was made by referring to a ‘record kerosakan’
however this record was not tendered or referred to in Court. Furthermore, SP1 also
offered no explanation as to how the total amount RM16,600.00 came to be:
“DF Encik Sofi setuju dengan saya anggaran tafsiran pembaikan sebanyak
RM16,600. Telah dinyatakan tanpa menyatakan harga setiap perkara
kerosakan dengan spesifik?
SP1 Setuju.”
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
15. The action of merely giving a lump sum amount, and to claim that THAT is the
estimated cost of repairs is unacceptable. This Court is minded that the nature of an
estimation is fluid/flexible as it is subject to changes, however the basis on which the
estimation is derived from has to be clear. This Court finds that SP1’s mere oral
assertion that the amount was derived from a supposed ‘rekod kerosakan’ is not
sufficient to support this claim as SP1 himself is not able to explain what are estimated
cost listed for each item listed there.
16. Next, on the element of ‘It must be proved either by receipts or some other
evidence’. Looking through the testimonies by both SP1 and SP2, this Court finds that
there is no proof to show that the vehicle has actually been repaired and no proof to
show that if there were repairs done, the cost to repair it was RM16,600.00 as claimed
by Plaintiff.
17. SP1 confirms that his task was only to inspect and to provide an estimation of
the costs needed to repair the Plaintiff’s vehicle. SP1 also confirms that the actual cost
of repair may differ than the estimation which he had provided. An extract of his
testimony is put below for reference:
“DF Encik Sofi, oleh kerana JKR hanya memeriksa, dan tidak membaiki.
Soalan saya, adakah pihak yang membaiki harus mengikut anggaran
JKR?
SP1 Tidak
DF Jawapan Encik Sofi tidak?
SP1 Tidak
DF Encik telah nyatakan bahawa pihak Jawapan Encik tidak?
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
SP1 Tidak
DF Encik Sofi, Encik Sofi telah nyatakan pihak pembaiki tidak perlu julat
harga yang telah ditetapkan oleh JKR. Oleh itu, mungkin tak apabila
kenderaan tersebut dibaiki, harga pembaikan sebenar berbeza dengan
julat harga JKR?
SP1 Mungkin
DF Jadi Encik Sofi setuju dengan saya, pemeriksaan dan anggaran tafsiran
dari JKR mungkin berbeza dengan kos pembaikan yang sebenar?
SP1 Ya
…..
DF Encik Sofi setuju dengan saya RM16,600.00 ini adalah angka bagi
anggaran tafsiran pembaikan dan bukan kos pembaikan kereta tersebut.
SP1 Setuju
….
DF Encik Sofi, soalan terakhir saya lah kepada Encik Sofi. Anggaran
sebanyak RM16,600.00 ini bukanlah resit pembaikan tetapi hanyalah
anggaran tafsiran pembaikan, betul?
SP1 Setuju.”
18. Based on the extract above, it is clear to this Court that SP1 was not able to
provide information whether or not the actual cost of repairs tallies with the amount
estimated by JKR.
19. Another important point that needs to be taken into account is that the Plaintiff
had failed to show that the vehicle had indeed been repaired. Both SP1 dan SP2 was
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
not involved in the reparation of the vehicle and could not confirm to the Court whether
or nor the vehicle has been repaired. An extract of the relevant testimony from SP1 is
as below :
“DF Encik Sofi telah mengesahkan Borang Laporan Kerosakan pada muka
surat 5 tersebut pada 19.7.2017, setuju?
SP1 Setuju
DF Adakah itu tarikh terakhir Encik Sofi melihat kenderaan tersebut?
SP1 Ya
DF Saya nyatakan kepada Encik Sofi bahawa setelah Encik Sofi sahkan
Borang Laporan Kerosakan dan juga anggaran tafsiran tersebut, Encik
Sofi tidak lagi mempunyai pengetahuan tentang kenderaan tersebut,
setuju?
SP1 Pengetahuan mengenai kenderaan tersebut sama ada dibaiki ataupun
tidak?
DF Ya. Maksudnya Encik Sofi tidak mempunyai pengetahuan selepas Encik
Sofi sahkan?
SP1 Sama ada kenderaan tersebut dibaiki atau tidak?
DF Ya
SP1 Ya, saya tak ada pengetahuan.”
20. Whereas, the relevant extract from SP2’s testimony is as below:
“DF Sarjan selepas kemalangan tersebut, adakah Sarjan masih
menggunakan kenderaan tersebut ataupun tidak?
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
SP2 Selepas kemalangan itu, kenderaan itu saya tidak gunakan lagi dan saya
serahkan kepada pihak PDRM untuk dibaiki.
DF Maksudnya selepas daripada kemalangan tersebut, Sarjan
menggunakan kenderaan lainlah semasa bertugas?
SP2 Ya
DF Sarjan boleh sahkan yang sehingga hari ini Sarjan selepas kemalangan
tersebut, memang Sarjan tidak ada guna langsung kenderaan tersebut?
SP2 Tidak ada langsung saya gunakan kenderaan tersebut.”
21. Based on the two testimonies above, this Court finds that there is no sufficient
proof to support whether or not the Plaintiff’s vehicle has been repaired.
22. Taking into account all of the issues stated above, the main point that remains
a mystery to this Court is what repair works that had been carried out, and whether
the repair works or cost of spare parts that were used in the repair works are
reasonable and had been carried out to the tee. No evidence or testimonies were
adduced by Plaintiff that could elucidate on this matter. The two witnesses that HAD
been called could only, at best, give evidence that there were damages to the Plaintiff’s
vehicle and there is an estimation on how much the repairs were going to cost. The
question of whether or not the recommended repair works were reasonable and
whether or not the repair works were actually carried out is left unanswered. Therefore,
this Court is unable to grant the special damages as pleaded by the Plaintiff.
23. Nevertheless putting aside the failure of the Plaintiff to sufficiently prove their
claim for special damages, considering the fact that this Court had found the
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
Defendants wholly liable for negligently causing the accident, this Court grants a sum
RM10.00 as nominal damages for the Plaintiff.
24. Overall on the balance of probabilities, this Court decides to allow only a part
of the Plaintiff’s claims with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff.
Case Details
Magistrate : Shairil Farhana Binti Ruslan
Counsel for Plaintiff : Raveena a/p Mogan, Federal Counsel
Counsel for Defendant : Muhammad Alif Lamra, Messrs Gan, Ho &Razlan Hadri.
Date of Decision : 8th December 2023
Date of Ground of Decision : 7th February 2024
S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 16,989 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-44-103-08/2023 | PEMOHON AZHARUZAMAN BIN WAHAB RESPONDEN 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAH BATU GAJAH,PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA | The application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.i) First issue - the detention order is defective for contradictions in the first and second allegations of fact - read together all the allegation, no confusion there - no merit to the first issue.ii) Second issue - Non-compliance of s. 3(2)(c) of the Act by DSP Saravanan - the type of dangerous drugs stated in the grounds and allegation of fact to the detention order is consistent with the finding of both the IO PDRM and IO KDN - there is no merit.iii) Third issue - The detention order is ex-facie defective as one of the drug trafficking location is non-existent - no merit to this issue. | 09/02/2024 | YA Puan Julia binti Ibrahim | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=17f99c03-a4bd-4323-b3d9-ca933bf86b2d&Inline=true |
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: BA-44-103-08/2023
BETWEEN
AZHARUZAMAN BIN WAHAB …APPLICANT
[IC No.: 890705-11-5041]
AND
1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA
2. PENGARAH PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK
BATU GAJAH, PERAK
3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA …APPELLANT
JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
[ 1 ] The application was heard on the 23rd of January 2024 and this
court had dismissed the application. The reasons for the dismissal are set
out below.
[ 2 ] A detention order dated 24.3.2023 was issued by the Deputy
Minister of Home Affairs (“the Deputy Minister”) against the applicant
09/02/2024 11:53:47
BA-44-103-08/2023 Kand. 24
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 2
under section 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures)
Act 1985 (“the Act”), ordering that the applicant be detained at Pusat
Pemulihan Akhlak Batu Gajah, Perak for two (2) years with effect from the
date of the detention order. The applicant applied for a writ of habeas
corpus citing procedural non-compliance with the Act and the Federal
Constitution.
THE ISSUES
[ 3 ] The applicant’s counsel in his written submission raised three
issues viz. -
(i) Procedural non-compliance when the detention order is
defective for contradictions found in the first and second
allegations of fact;
(ii) Non-compliance of section 3(2)(c) of the Act by DSP
Saravanan a/l Divanantong when he failed to apply his mind
correctly before allowing the applicant’s detention for
investigation exceeding 14 days; and
(iii) The detention order is ex-facie defective as one of the drug
trafficking location is non-existent i.e. “di tepi jalan sekitar
hadapan Eco-Shop Marketing Sdn Bhd., Batu 3, Kuantan,
Pahang”.
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 3
THE LAW ON HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATIONS
[ 4 ] Subsection 11C(1) of the Act allowed judicial review for non-
compliance of any procedural requirement of the Act –
“Judicial review of act or decision of Yang di-Pertuan Agong and
Minister
11C. (1) There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court
shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or
decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister in the
exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with this Act, save
in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural
requirement in this Act governing such act or decision.”
(emphasis added)
[ 5 ] Various decisions of the Federal Court had strictly applied such
provisions as in the following case of Rovin Joty Kodeeswaran v.
Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors And Other Appeals1 -
“[10] Judicial review on the decision of the tribunals exercising similar
functions to the Board should not be questioned except on
procedural non-compliance. Such discretion in determining the
substantive / policy matter by the Board was outside the reach of the
courts…”
[ 6 ] The burden of proving compliance with the law and procedures is
always on the Respondents. [see S.K. Tangakaliswaran v Timbalan
Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors.2, Muhammad Jailani Kasim v Timbalan
1 [2021] 4 CLJ 1
2 [2009] 6CLJ 705
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 4
Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors.3]. A detenu can
also take advantage of any technical imperfections in the action taken by
the detaining authorities. [see Ng Hong Choon v Timbalan Menteri Hal
Ehwal Dalam Negeri & 1 Lagi SC4].
THE SUBMISSIONS AND FINDING
First issue: The detention order is defective for contradictions in the first
and second allegations of fact
[ 7 ] Learned counsel submitted that the detention order is defective,
confusing and prejudicial to the applicant as there are contradictions in
the first and second allegations of fact. The first allegations of fact stated
that the applicant had been involved in drug trafficking activities from end
of March 2022 to 12 February 2023 not continuously (secara tidak
berterusan). But in the second allegations of fact stated that the
applicant’s sale of the drugs was carried out every day (“menjual dadah
tersebut dengan kekerapan pada setiap hari”).
[ 8 ] Learned counsel compared the allegations of fact in a detention
order as similar to a charge in a criminal trial. As such, the applicant’s
representation hearing under Article 151 of the Federal Constitution is
defective which in turn would render the recommendation by the Advisory
Board to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under subsection 10(1) of the Act
also defective.
3 [2006] 4 CLJ 687]
4 [1994] 4 CLJ 47, at p.55].
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 5
[ 9 ] Learned Senior Federal Counsel (“SFC”) argued that this issue is
not an issue of procedural non-compliance but questioning the exercise
of the Deputy Minister’s power in issuing a detention order under section
6(1) of the Act. Section 11C(1) of the Act prohibits judicial review of any
act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (“YDPA”) or the
Minister in the exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with
this Act.
[ 10 ] It was also submitted that the purpose of the allegations of fact is
to enable the applicant to make a representation before the Advisory
Board concerning his detention. The mandatory procedure with regards
to the grounds and allegations of fact on which his detention is based on
is to furnish the applicant with the same under subsection 9(2) of the Act
which was duly complied with in this case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING
[ 11 ] The allegations of fact are reproduced below for a clearer picture
of the alleged contradictions –
“PENGATAAN-PENGATAAN FAKTA YANG ATASNYA
PERINTAH ITU DIASASKAN -
1. Bahawa kamu merupakan sebahagian dari
sekumpulan besar orang didapati terlibat dengan aktiviti
pengedaran dadah jenis pil kuda yang mengandungi
dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine sejak
penghujung bulan Mac 2022 sehingga 12 Februari 2023
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 6
secara tidak berterusan di sekitar kawasan tepi jalan
berhampiran Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Seri Damai,
Kuantan, Pahang, di sekitar kawasan Kampung Seri
Damai, Kuantan Pahang, di sekitar kawasan Taman Tas,
Kuantan, Pahang, di tepi jalan sekitar hadapan rumah
beralamat No.252-B, FELDA Sungai Panching Selatan,
Kuantan, Pahang, di sekitar kawasan belakang Restoran
Nasi Lemak Zaman, Jalan Kuantan-Gambang, Kuantan,
Pahang, di tepi jalan sekitar hadapan Eco-Shop Marketing
Sdn. Bhd., Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang dan di sekitar
kawasan Kampung Tengah, Kuantan, Pahang.
2. Bahawa kamu merupakan sebahagian dari
sekumpulan besar orang didapati menjual dadah jenis Pil
Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis
Methamphetamine dalam bentuk tongkol (10 peket plastik
berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM7,000.00 hingga
RM8,000.00 setongkol, dalam bentuk peket (5 peket
plastik berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM3,500.00
hingga RM3,800.00, dalam bentuk peket (3 peket plastik
berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM2,000.00, dalam
bentuk kandang (peket berisi 200 biji) dengan harga
RM1,000.00 hingga RM1,200.00 sekandang dan dalam
bentuk baris (tiub straw berisi 10 biji) dengan harga
RM100.00 sebaris. Bahawa kamu juga mengaku menjual
bekalan dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi
dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dengan
kekerapan setiap hari.
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 7
3. Bahawa kamu merupakan sebahagian dari
sekumpulan besar orang didapati membeli bekalan dadah
jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis
Methamphetamine dalam bentuk kandang (peket berisi
200 biji) berharga RM700.00 sekandang dan dalam bentuk
tiga (3) tongkol (peket berisi 2,000 biji setongkol) berharga
RM18,000.00 daripada rakan-rakan sejenayah dan
membuat pembungkusan semula dalam bentuk peket kecil
pelbagai saiz bagi tujuan pengedaran. Bahawa kamu
mengaku membeli bekalan dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang
mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine
dengan kekerapan satu (1) peket hingga tiga (3) kali
seminggu bagi tujuan pengedaran kepada rakan-rakan
sejenayah.
4. Bahawa kamu merupakan sebahagian dari
sekumpulan besar orang didapati mengendalikan aktiviti
pengedaran dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi
dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dengan
merekrut rakan-rakan sejenayah sebagai pengedar dadah
dengan membekalkan dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang
mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine
dalam bentuk tongkol (10 peket plastik berisi 200 biji
sepeket) dengan harga RM7,000.00 hingga RM8,000.00
setongkol, dalam bentuk peket (5 peket plastik berisi 200
biji sepeket) dengan harga RM3,500.00 hingga
RM3,800.00, dalam bentuk peket (3 peket plastik berisi
200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM2,000.00, dalam bentuk
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 8
kandang (peket berisi 200 biji) dengan harga RM1,000.00
hingga RM1,200.00 sekandang bagi tujuan pengedaran.
Bahawa kamu juga didapati mempunyai rakan sejenayah
yang berperanan sebagai penjaga stor simpanan dan
sebagai penghantar bekalan (runner) dadah jenis Pil Kuda
yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis
Methamphetamine dengan membayar upah RM500.00
kepada rakan sejenayah berkenaan bagi penghantaran
bekalan dadah dalam sehari.”
(emphasis added)
[ 12 ] The court finds itself in agreement with learned SFC on this issue.
The issue raised is not a procedural non-compliance issue. The applicant
had been duly served and furnished with a copy of the grounds and
allegations of fact together with the detention order as provided under
subsection 9(2) of the Act. The applicant had been given the opportunity
to make representation before the Advisory Board. A recommendation
was duly submitted to the YDPA for his approval.
[ 13 ] There is no provision in the Act on how the content of the grounds
and allegations of fact should be narrated or then considered by the
Advisory Board. As stated in Lee Kew Sang v Timbalan Menteri Dalam
Negeri Malaysia & Ors5 “It is not for the courts to create procedural
requirements because it is not the function of the courts to make law or
rules.”
5 [2005] 3 CLJ 914, page 930-931
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 9
[ 14 ] In any case, the court found no contradictions between the two
allegations of fact as each paragraph of the allegations refers to a different
activity and all paragraphs must be read together to have a complete
picture of the applicant’s involvement in drug trafficking activities. The first
allegation refers to the different areas of the applicant’s drug
trafficking activities in Kuantan, Pahang, not continuously simply means
drug is not trafficked everyday in every area stated. The second allegation
specifically focussed on the sale of drugs in different forms referred to
as “tongkol, kandang, peket and baris” priced differently and sold every
day without reference to any particular area. The third allegation
detailed how the applicant bought his drug supply and repackaging the
drugs for sale. The fourth allegation laid out how the applicant recruited
accomplices for the storage and delivery of the drugs. Read together, no
confusion there, thus the court finds no merit to the first issue.
Second issue: Non-compliance of section 3(2)(c) of the Act by DSP
Saravanan a/l Divanantong when he failed to apply his mind correctly
before allowing the applicant’s detention for investigation exceeding 14
days.
[ 15 ] It was submitted by learned counsel that the applicant’s case file
submitted by the Investigation officer Inspector Abang Annuar bin Abang
Kaderi (“IO/PDRM”) to DSP Saravanan a/l Divanantong (“DSP
Saravanan”) was defective and incorrect. Learned counsel based this
argument on an incorrect reference to the type of drug that the applicant
was suspected to be trafficking. This can be seen at paragraph 4, line 9
and 10 of DSP Saravanan’s Affidavit (enclosure 12) where he stated the
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 10
type of dangerous drug as ‘Heroin’. In the grounds and allegations of fact
the type of dangerous drug is stated as ‘Methamphetamine’.
[ 16 ] Learned counsel then questioned whether the applicant was
actually involved with the trafficking of ‘Heroin’ or ‘Methamphetamine’?
Consequently, it was argued that the report made by DSP Saravanan to
ACP Mohamed Fadzil bin A. Rahman (“ACP Mohamed Fadzil”) which was
submitted to the Minister under section 3(2)(c) of the Act was also
defective. There was no Affidavit filed by DSP Saravanan to amend the
incorrect reference in his Affidavit Jawapan. This shows that DSP
Saravanan and ACP Mohamed Fadzil did not use their mind correctly in
allowing the continued detention of the applicant.
[ 17 ] On the other hand, learned SFC submitted that the incorrect
reference of the drug type was a typing error. Although a correction was
not made by DSP Saravanan, the mistake is not material to the case and
did not prejudice the applicant. The learned SFC relied on the case of Tay
Lay Beng v Menteri Hal-Ehwal Dalam Negeri & Anor6, PP v Chean
Hua Sey & Ors7 and Mohd Fazli bin Md Daud v Timbalan Menteri
Dalam Negeri & 2 Lagi8 as support for his argument.
[ 18 ] It was also argued that the procedural requirement for detaining
the applicant beyond 14 days under section 3(2)(c) of the Act is the
reporting of the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and detention to
ACP Mohamed Fadzil and to the Minister. This was duly complied with by
DSP Saravanan and ACP Mohamed Fadzil. The Minister had
6 [2004] 8 CLJ 674
7 [2008] 9 CLJ 657, para
8 [2022] 1 LNS 913, para 21
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 11
acknowledged receipt of the report in his Affidavit Jawapan, in paragraph
6 (enclosure 5).
ANALYSIS AND FINDING
[ 19 ] Section 3(2)(c) of the Act requires the reporting of the
circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and detention by a a police officer
of or above the rank of DSP to the Inspector General of Police (”IGP”) or
a police officer designated by him to be forwarded forthwith to the Minister.
There is no provision that details what are the circumstances of an
applicant’s arrest and detention that must be stated in such report.
[ 20 ] A perusal of the IO/PDRM’s Affidavit (para 6, enclosure 9) shows
that the investigation on the applicant’s involvement in drug trafficking
activities could not be completed within 14 days; as such, a report of the
circumstances of his arrest and detention was made to DSP Saravanan.
In paragraph 5 of DSP Saravanan’s Affidavit (supra), he stated that upon
his perusal of the applicant’s case file, he was satisfied that the
investigation is yet to be completed and the applicant’s detention should
be extended to more than 14 days. DSP Saravanan then complied with
section 3(2)(c) of the Act by reporting the circumstances of his arrest and
detention to ACP Mohamed Fadzli to be extended to the Minister. The
mandatory procedural requirement was duly complied with thus far.
[ 21 ] The court found that the incorrect reference of the type of drug in
DSP Saravanan’s Affidavit i.e. Heroin instead of Methamphetamine be it
a typing error or not is immaterial and not prejudicial to the applicant. At
this stage, the investigation into the applicant’s drug trafficking activities
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 12
with a substantial number of people is not yet complete. The investigation
report by the IO/PDRM under section 3(3) of the Act was only completed
on 3.3.2023 and sent to the Minister and inquiry officer of the Home
Ministry (“IO/KDN”).
[ 22 ] Only upon receipt of both the reports from the IO/PDRM and the
IO/KDN under section 5(4) of the Act will the Minister consider the
necessity to issue a detention order against the applicant. The type of
dangerous drug stated in the IO/PDRM’s Affidavit Jawapan (para 14,
enclosure 9) and the IO/KDN’s Affivadit Jawapan (para 12, enclosure 6)
is Methamphetamine. The Minister in turn based his decision to issue a
detention order on these two complete reports and not on the report of
ACP Mohamed Fadzil and DSP Saravanan’s report. Thus, the type of
dangerous drugs stated in the grounds and allegations of fact to the
detention order is consistent with the finding of both the IO/PDRM and
IO/KDN. The court finds no merit to this issue.
Third issue: The detention order is ex-facie defective as one of the drug
trafficking location is non-existent i.e. “di tepi jalan, sekitar hadapan Eco-
Shop Marketing Sdn Bhd., Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang”.
[ 23 ] In the applicant’s Affidavit Sokongan (enclosure 3), photos of Eco-
Shops in Pahang sourced from the company’s website were attached as
“AH-2”. It was contended that none of the Eco-Shop’s stores in Kuantan
showed an address as stated in the first paragraph of the allegations of
fact i.e, Eco-Shop Marketing, Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang (“the Eco-Shop”).
Therefore, learned counsel submitted as the address does not exist, it
renders the detention order ex-facie defective.
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
JUDGMENT
AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 13
[ 24 ] It was also argued that the IO/PDRM’s reply in his Affidavit
Jawapan had failed to discharge the Respondent’s burden to answer a
specific issue raised by the applicant. This in turn raised the question of
whether the IO/PDRM had actually visited the place since no proof of the
visit like a photograph of the area was not appended to his Affidavit
Jawapan to challenge the applicant’s allegation.
[ 25 ] Learned SFC maintained that this issue is also not a procedural
non-compliance issue. As submitted before, the procedure under section
9 of the Act is the service and furnishing of the grounds and allegations of
fact to the applicant for his representation before the Advisory Board.
Learned SFC also argued the fact that the IO/PDRM had actually visited
the place i.e. at the road side, around the front of Eco-Shop Marketing
Sdn. Bhd, Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang (para 36 of his Affidavit Jawapan).
The emphasis is on “the road side, around the front of the Eco-Shop” (di
tepi jalan, sekitar hadapan Eco-Shop), not the shop itself. On the other
hand, the learned counsel had only obtained his information on his search
the company’s website.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING
[ 26 ] The court agrees with learned SFC’s argument that this is another
non-issue of procedural compliance. On closer inspection, it is correct to
say that the emphasis is on the “surrounding area in front of the shop, at
the road side”; not the shop itself. This is consistent with the description
of the other areas of drug trafficking activities listed such as “di sekitar
kawasan Taman Tas, Kuantan, Pahang, di tepi jalan sekitar hadapan
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 21,570 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-12BNCvC-49-12/2022 | PERAYU HUAT SIANG HARDWARE SDN BHD RESPONDEN AMIR FAEZAL NORZELA & CHONG | "Conveyancing transaction – Role and responsibilities of conveyancing lawyers – Whether conveyan(...TRUNCATED) | 09/02/2024 | YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=197136a3-bc69-4cb5-a37e-218619250708&Inline=true | "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDALAM MAHKAMAH TING(...TRUNCATED) | 22,490 | Tika 2.6.0 |
CB-24NCvC-131-05/2023 | PEMOHON SINIAH @ ITAM BINTI SHARIF @ SHARIFF RESPONDEN PENDAFTAR HAK MILIK NEGERI PAHANG | "Saman Pemula untuk deklarasi bahawa Pemohon telah diberikan hakmilik selama-lamanya di bawah Land C(...TRUNCATED) | 09/02/2024 | YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4a27e3f5-f058-41bc-94d0-16525695d514&Inline=true | "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMicrosoft Word - SINIAH v PTD CAM(...TRUNCATED) | 40,678 | Tika 2.6.0 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
- Downloads last month
- 69