CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2014, Vol 18 2 May 2014 Print this page |
ADISWARAN THARUMAPUTRINTAR v. PP & OTHER APPEALS
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
RICHARD MALANJUM CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK), ABDULL HAMID EMBONG FCJ, AHMAD MAAROP FCJ, HASAN LAH FCJ, ZALEHA ZAHARI FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEALS NO: 05-314-11-2011(B), 05-315-11-2011(B), 05-316-11-2011(B) & 05-317-11-2011(B)]
5 FEBRUARY 2014
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Sections 34, 302 - Murder - Common intention to commit murder - Proof - Whether ingredients of murder proved against accused persons - Whether evidence only pointed to guilt of first accused - Whether no evidence that other accused present at scene as confederates of first accused
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Sections 34, 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether conclusively pointing towards guilt of accused persons - Common intention - Whether sufficiently proved by prosecution - Whether conclusively showed that death was caused only by first accused - Whether prima facie case proved against other accused persons
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Murder - Failure to call important witness - Whether fatal to prosecution's case - Whether sufficient effort made to trace witness - Whether adverse inference ought to be invoked - Penal Code s. 34, 302 - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
PP lwn. MANSOR MOHAMAD [2014] 1 SMC 33
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, JOHOR BAHRU
MOHAMAD HALDAR ABDUL AZIZ HS
[KES TANGKAP NO: 61-26-2011, 61-27-2011 & 61-28-2011]
15 MAC 2012
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rasuah - Kesalahan meminta dan menerima wang suapan - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan berjaya dibuktikan - Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1997, ss. 10(a)(bb) & 11 - Sama ada anggapan statutori di bawah s. 42(1) berjaya dipatahkan
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Keterangan - Sama ada bersifat `afterthought' - Sama ada tertuduh memberi keterangan yang kredibel dan boleh dipercayai - Sama ada memberi faedah keraguan - Sama ada tertuduh menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan
PP v. ZHAO JINGENG & ORS [2010] 7 CLJ 516
[2] Issue: Whether the Magistrate, having agreed with the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) of the Immigration Department that the foreign nationals thus arrested by the Department were “trafficked persons”, and the IO having then applied for Interim Protection Order (‘IPO’) under s. 52 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007 (‘the Act’), could rightfully and properly invoke s. 51(3)(b)(ii) of the Act and order for the trafficked persons to be released to an Immigration officer for necessary actions under the Immigration Act 1959/ 63.
“Section 51(3)(b)(ii) of the Act should not have been relied upon by the Magistrate if he agreed with the IO’s conclusion that the 26 respondents are foreign nationals and trafficked persons. It is erroneous for the Magistrate to decide on the one hand that he agreed with the IO’s conclusions and, on the other hand, act in a contrary manner under s. 51(3)(b)(ii) of the Act and conclude that the 26 respondents are not trafficked persons and order their release. Due to this error by the Magistrate, the 26 respondents were purportedly released. This hampered the work of the IO in proceeding to take further action under s. 52 of the Act for an application to be made to the Magistrate’s Court for the recording of evidence of the trafficked persons under s. 52 of the Act.”
“Going by the report of the IO, I am satisfied that the 26 respondents are trafficked persons and the order by the Magistrate should be made under s. 51(3)(a)(ii) and not s. 51(3)(b)(ii) of the Act. I held that the Magistrate had erred in fact and in law and his decision to release the 26 respondents under s. 51(3)(b)(ii) of the Act is incorrect and improper. In exercise of my powers of revision under Chapter XXXI of the CPC, I allowed the application of the Public Prosecutor. I set aside the order of the Magistrate made under s. 51(3)(b)(ii) of the Act and substituted it with an order under s. 51(3)(a)(ii) of the same Act. I ordered that the 26 respondents be placed in a place of refuge for a period not exceeding three months from 17 August 2009, ie, the date of expiry of the IPO, to enable the enforcement officer to make the necessary application under s. 52 of the Act for the recording of their deposition or evidence before a Magistrate” – Per Yeoh Wee Siam JC in PP v. Zhao Jingeng & Ors [2010] 7 CLJ 516.
For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw. |
Legal Network Series
[2013] 1 LNS 88 MOHD KUSAINI MAHMUD v. PP CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Prosecution's case - Prima facie case - Whether a reasonable inference could be drawn that accused had knowledge of the drugs from the place where the drugs were found - Whether accused was in possession of the drugs found in the room - Whether any break in chain in evidence of how drugs were handled marked and stored - Whether drugs produced in court were the same drugs seized by police from accused's room - Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case against accused
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Defence's story - Accused purportedly shared room with friend named "Aizat" - Whether failure of accused to give further details of friend showed that friend either did not exist and even if existed had nothing to do with drugs in his room - Whether failure to call this friend raised an adverse inference against accused - Whether accused failed to raise any reasonable doubt - Whether accused also failed to rebut presumption of trafficking - Whether prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt[2013] 1 LNS 90 KRISHNAVENI MUNUSAMY & ANOR v. BAWANESWARY R CHINNIAH & ORS CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Capacity – 1st plaintiff and deceased divorced - Whether 1st plaintiff had locus standi to bring action since she was not the lawful widow of deceased - Issue whether 1st nomination was still valid or whether 2nd nomination superseded 1st nomination - Whether 1st plaintiff was bringing the action in her capacity as a nominee under the 1st nomination and not in her capacity as the lawful widow of deceased – 1st plaintiff's capacity to bring the action as a next friend of the two children - Whether 1st plaintiff had locus standi to maintain this action as an alleged nominee under the 1st nomination - Whether 1st plaintiff had the locus standi to bring this action for and on behalf of the two children
PROVIDENT FUND: Beneficiary - Nomination - Whether 1st nomination or 2nd nomination of deceased valid - Whether 1st nomination revoked or cancelled by deceased and superseded by 2nd nomination - Whether 1st nomination ceased to have effect under regulation 7(1)(b) of the EPF Regulations 2001 when deceased made second or subsequent nomination under rule 34(2) of the EPF Rules 1991 - Whether deceased acted under regulation 7(1)(c) of the EPF Regulations 2001 and this sufficed to meet requirements of that regulation for 1st nomination to cease to have effect - Whether 1st plaintiff had legal claim to amount standing to deceased's credit in the EPF - Whether she was no longer a nominee of deceased when deceased made 2nd nomination which revoked 1st nomination - Whether two children had legal claim to deceased's EPF money since they had not been nominated as deceased's nominees for such money
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Conjunctive or disjunctive - Whether regulation 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the EPF Regulations 2001 should be read disjunctively in view of the connecting word "or" that appears between paragraphs (b) and (c) of regulation 7- Whether would be totally illogical to read regulation 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) conjunctively, and even fatal to plaintiff if regulation 7(1) (a) had to be read together with regulation 7(1) (b) and (c) - Whether such interpretation would mean that 1st plaintiff's claim would be defeated - Whether such interpretation as contended by 1st plaintiff would mean nominee or 1st plaintiff had to pass away first before her ex-husband/deceased could make 2nd nomination[2013] 1 LNS 113 SPENCER LU KHEE KIUN v. UNIMEKAR METALS SDN BHD CONTRACT: Employment contract - Variation - Plaintiff present at the 2010 meeting and participated in the discussion on revision of retirement age - Plaintiff continued to work for defendant without any protest - Whether revision of retirement age from 60 to 55 years old was valid in law - Whether plaintiff was aware and accepted new term of employment - Whether plaintiff was bound by the 2010 revision - Whether plaintiff had knowledge of the 'modus operandi' of defendant in respect of retirement age policy [2013] 1 LNS 114 WISTANA CONSTRUCTION (LANGKAWI SDN BHD v. RAFIDI ABDULLAH & ORS CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Further and better particulars - Defendants' attempt to impose 'conditions' on payments made towards settlement despite being notified that would not be acceptable - Whether an attempt to unreasonably claim further advantage which defendants were not entitled to do - Failure to furnish further and better particulars ordered by the court in the proper format despite the courts further direction and indulgences - Whether amounted to a deliberate and calculated affront on the integrity of the court's directions and orders - Whether Statement of Defence should be struck out and Judgment entered for plaintiff
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Case Management - Orders that Statement of Defence be struck out and Judgment be entered in favour of plaintiff made during pretrial case management - Whether the court was vested with wide powers during pre-trial case management process to make appropriate orders and directions to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the action or proceedings - Whether orders made were well within Court's powers[2013] 1 LNS 115 PUAH KIM YEN & ORS v. MAJU STEEL SDN BHD CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Judgment - Earlier action - Whether res judicata applied such that having failed to introduce fresh evidence in the motion before the Court of Appeal, plaintiffs were precluded from commencing a fresh tort action to impeach the judgment of Court in a 2004 suit - Whether the court may decline to apply res judicata where to do so would lead to an unjust result - Prima facie evidence which could not be retrieved during trial in a 2004 suit now found and forthcoming - Whether proper procedure was a fresh action to impeach the original judgment
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Writ and Statement of claim - Application for - Questions raised on the nature and quality of evidence retrieved which was not previously forthcoming - Whether Court should allow that complaint to be heard in a fresh cause of action to impeach the judgment of the Court in a 2004 suitCLJ 2014 Volume 3 (Part 7)
COURT
FEDERAL COURT
Adiswaran Tharumaputrintar v. PP & Other Appeals
Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari FCJJ
(Criminal Law; Evidence - Penal Code - Common intention to commit murder - Whether ingredients of murder proved against accused persons) [2014] 3 CLJ 813 [FC]COURT OF APPEAL
Yang Dipertua Majlis Daerah Gua Musang v. Pedik Busu & Ors
Abdul Wahab Patail, David Wong Dak Wah, Tengku Maimun JJCA
(Local Government - Church building demolished by local authority for non-compliance with demolition order - Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974, s. 72(4), (5)) [2014] 3 CLJ 847 [CA]HIGH COURT
Kasai Reiko v. Annie Lor Lee Fong & Ors; Public Bank Bhd (Intervener)
Lee Swee Seng JC
(Trusts; Land Law - Constructive trust - Property - Registered proprietors of apartments held properties on trust for actual buyer - False representation) [2014] 3 CLJ 869 [HC]Low Poh Kim v. Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Selangor & Ors
Prasad Sandosham Abraham J
(Land Law - Transfer - Fraud - Whether void and insufficient instruments used to dispossess original registered owner of land - Whether transfers defeasible) [2014] 3 CLJ 897 [HC]Measat Broadcast Network Systems Sdn Bhd v. AV Asia Sdn Bhd
Nallini Pathmanathan J
(Civil Procedure - Security - Interim measure in pending arbitration proceedings - Jurisdiction - Whether High Court had power to grant remedy) [2014] 3 CLJ 915 [HC]SUBJECT INDEX
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Security - Security for plaintiff's costs - Interim measure in pending arbitration proceedings - Jurisdiction - Whether High Court had power to grant remedy - Whether application for security flawed - Whether defendant in financial position to pay plaintiff's costs - Whether there was real possibility that plaintiff would be deprived of any order of costs made in its favour - Whether application ought to be granted - Quantum - Assessment of
Measat Broadcast Network Systems Sdn Bhd v. AV Asia Sdn Bhd
(Nallini Pathmanathan J) [2014] 3 CLJ 915 [HC]CRIMNAL LAW
Penal Code - Sections 34, 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether conclusively pointing towards guilt of accused persons - Common intention - Whether sufficiently proved by prosecution - Whether conclusively showed that death was caused only by first accused - Whether prima facie case proved against other accused persons
Adiswaran Tharumaputrintar v. PP & Other Appeals
(Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari FCJJ) [2014] 3 CLJ 813 [FC]Penal Code - Sections 34, 302 - Murder - Common intention to commit murder - Proof - Whether ingredients of murder proved against accused persons - Whether evidence only pointed to guilt of first accused - Whether no evidence that other accused present at scene as confederates of first accused
Adiswaran Tharumaputrintar v. PP & Other Appeals
(Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari FCJJ) [2014] 3 CLJ 813 [FC]EVIDENCE
Adverse inference - Murder - Failure to call important witness - Whether fatal to prosecution's case - Whether sufficient effort made to trace witness - Whether adverse inference ought to be invoked - Penal Code s. 34, 302 - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
Adiswaran Tharumaputrintar v. PP & Other Appeals
(Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari FCJJ) [2014] 3 CLJ 813 [FC]LAND LAW
Sale and purchase - Transfer purchase of properties in Malaysia by foreigner - False representation that properties could only be registered in name of Malaysian - Whether transfer to Malaysian tainted with fraud - Whether Malaysian held properties on constructive trust
Kasai Reiko v. Annie Lor Lee Fong & Ors; Public Bank Bhd (Intervener)
(Lee Swee Seng JC) [2014] 3 CLJ 869 [HC]Transfer - Fraud - Whether void and insufficient instruments used to dispossess original registered owner of land - Whether transfers defeasible - Whether inefficiency of land title registering authorities facilitated commission of fraud - Whether proper procedures for issue of computerised land title to replace old document of title not followed - National Land Code, s. 5(A) and 14th Schedule
Low Poh Kim v. Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Selangor & Ors
(Prasad Sandosham Abraham J) [2014] 3 CLJ 897 [HC]LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Buildings - Demolition order - Local authority serving demolition order on church building - Church building demolished by local authority for non-compliance with demolition order - Church building not located within jurisdiction of local authority - Failure of local authority to give 30 days' notice before demolition - Whether demolition lawful - Whether local authority liable to pay damages - Whether local authority liable to pay exemplary damages - Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974, s. 72(4), (5)
Yang Dipertua Majlis Daerah Gua Musang v. Pedik Busu & Ors
(Abdul Wahab Patail, David Wong Dak Wah, Tengku Maimun JJCA) [2014] 3 CLJ 847 [CA]TRUSTS
Constructive trust - Property - Registered proprietors of apartments held properties on trust for actual buyer - False representation - Whether transfers of properties fraudulent and should be set aside - Whether interest of chargee bank not privy to fraud protected under s. 340 of National Land Code - Whether chargee bank bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and had acquired indefeasible interest
Kasai Reiko v. Annie Lor Lee Fong & Ors; Public Bank Bhd (Intervener)
(Lee Swee Seng JC) [2014] 3 CLJ 869 [HC]
Legal Network Series Article(s)
1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ISLAMIC BANKING LAWS IN MALAYSIA: AN OVERVIEW* [Read excerpt]
by: RUZIAN MARKOM**, NORILAWATI ISMAIL*** [2014] 1 LNS(A) xxviii2. KEPENTINGAN TEMPAT KEJADIAN JENAYAH (CRIME SCENE)DAN KETERANGAN FIZIKAL
(PHYSICAL EVIDENCE) DALAM PENYIASATAN KES-KES JENAYAH [Read excerpt]
by: RAMALINGGAM RAJAMANICKAM* [2014] 1 LNS(A) xxix3. CABARAN PENGUATKUASAAN DAN PELAKSANAAN PERINTAH NAFKAH DI
MAHKAMAH SYARIAH NEGERI SELANGOR DARI PERSPEKTIF PEGUAM SYAR'IE*[Read excerpt]
(Challenges to the Enforcement and Implementation of Maintenance
Order in the Selangor Syariah Court from the Syar'ie Lawyer's Perspective)
oleh: ZAINI NASOHAH** [2014] 1 LNS(A) xxx
Principal Acts
Number | Title | Date coming into force | Repealing |
ACT 761 | Finance Act 2014 | See s 3 for the Income Tax Act; s 33 for the Stamp Act; s 36 for the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act; s 44 for the Real Property Gains Tax Act and s 50 for the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act | -Nil- |
ACT 760 | Fees (Department Of Museums Malaysia) (Validation) Act 2014 | 1 January 1991 to 11 June 2012 | -Nil- |
ACT 759 | Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 | 30 June 2013 [PU(B) 277/2013] - except para(s) 1 to 10 of Schedule 9 and para(s) 13 to 19 of Schedule 9 | -Nil- |
ACT 758 | Financial Services Act 2013 | 30 June 2013 [PU(B) 276/2013] - except s 129 and Schedule 9 | -Nil- |
ACT 757 | Strata Management Act 2013 | Not Yet In Force | -Nil- |
Amending Acts
Number | Title | Date coming into force | Principal/Amending Act No |
ACT A1460 | Prison (Amendment) Act 2014 | 3 April 2014 | ACT 537 |
ACT A1459 | Prevention Of Crime (Amendment And Extension) Act 2014 | 2 April 2014 | ACT 297 |
ACT A1457 | Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2014 | 15 February 2014 | ACT 234 |
ACT A1458 | Supply Act 2014 | 1 January 2014 | |
ACT A1456 | Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2013 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 166 |
PU(A)
Number | Title | Date of Publication | Date coming into force | Principal/Amending Act No |
PU(A) 109/2014 | Registration Of Businesses (Waiver Of Fee) Rules 2014 | 21 April 2014 | 30 December 2013 | ACT 197; ACT 388 |
PU(A) 108/2014 | Wildlife Conservation (Amendment Of Schedule) Order 2014 | 17 April 2014 | 18 April 2014 | ACT 716 |
PU(A) 107/2014 | Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Premium Systems In Respect Of Deposit-Taking Members) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 | 16 April 2014 | Assessment year of 2014 | PU(A) 34/2011 |
PU(A) 106/2014 | Road Transport (Prohibition Of Use Of Road) (City Of Kuala Lumpur) (No. 2) Order 2014 | 16 April 2014 | 20 April 2014 | ACT 333 |
PU(A) 105/2014 | Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 2014 | 14 April 2014 | 15 April 2014 | PU(A) 401/1989 |
PU(B)
Number | Title | Date of Publication | Date coming into force | Principal/Amending Act No |
PU(B) 135/2014 | Notification Under Section 10 | 21 April 2014 | 22 April 2014 | ACT 283 |
PU(B) 134/2014 | Appointment Of Authorized Officers | 18 April 2014 | 18 April 2014 | ACT 308 |
PU(B) 133/2014 | Appointment Of Authorized Officers | 18 April 2014 | 18 April 2014 | ACT 506 |
PU(B) 132/2014 | Appointment Of Place Of Safety | 18 April 2014 | 18 April 2014 | ACT 611 |
PU(B) 131/2014 | Appointment Of Probation Officers | 18 April 2014 | 18 April 2014 | ACT 611 |
To view previous issues of the CLJ Bulletin, Click here
If you no longer wish to receive this email in the future, you may unsubscribe.
CLJ Bulletin: Copyright © 1997 - 2014 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 03-42705421(DL) 03-42705400(GL) Fax No: 03-42705402