Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) NARESH NAIDU A/L APPALOONIODU 2. ) NORAZARUDIN BIN BAHARI

Case Significance

Illustrates the strict proof the threat element of extortion under section 384 of the Penal Code requires: a complainant's generalised fear of trouble does not establish a statutory threat, and an unproduced money exhibit mismatched to the charged sum leaves a fatal gap in the prosecution case.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam concerns the prosecution's appeal against a Magistrate's decision acquitting and discharging two accused, at the close of the prosecution case, on a charge of extortion under section 384 of the Penal Code read with section 34. The charge alleged that the two, acting together at a police post, put the complainant in fear and dishonestly induced him to deliver RM300 in cash; on the account given, they had first demanded a larger sum to release the complainant from a supposed offence before a reduced figure of RM300 was said to have been handed over. The Magistrate found the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case and acquitted both accused without calling on them to enter a defence, and the prosecution appealed.

The High Court examined whether the Magistrate had erred, focusing on whether the ingredients of extortion were established, in particular whether there was evidence that the accused had made a threat within the statutory definition of putting a person in fear. It agreed with the Magistrate that the key complainant's (SP2's) evidence was inconsistent, and that his statement that he paid RM300 because he "had to" and was "afraid of trouble" fell short of proving the essential element of a threat. There was, moreover, no evidence linking the two accused to any threat of physical, emotional, reputational or property harm as required by the statutory definition. The court also found a further gap: the money exhibit had not been produced in court and, tellingly, the sum actually seized (RM1,543) did not match the RM300 alleged in the charge, casting doubt on the identity of the money said to have been extorted. Concluding that the prosecution's case had not established the offence, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal. The judgment illustrates the strict proof the threat element of extortion requires.