Che Sa'adon Bin Che Yahya v Pendakwa Raya [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]

t-06b-38-05-2022 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 8 January 2025 • T-06B-38-05/2022 • 40 min read

19 cases cited (1 SG, 18 foreign)

Outcome

Bagi Rayuan Jenayah No: T-06B-39-05/2022 (i) Rayuan perayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman ditolak; (ii) Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Terengganu bertarikh 11 Mei 2022 mengenepikan perintah Mahkamah Sesyen dan meminda kepada hukuman pemenjaraan selama satu (1) minggu bermula 11 Mei 2022 dan denda RM 10,000.00 jika gagal bayar sembilan (9) bulan pemenjaraan dikekalkan.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (t-06b-38-05-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Seksyen 471 Kanun Keseksaan - Using as genuine a forged document - Seksyen 464 Kanun Keseksaan - Making a false document - Seksyen 465 Kanun Keseksaan - Punishment for forgery - Seksyen 24 Kanun Keseksaan - “Dishonestly" - pertuduhan pilihan adalah cacat dan tidak sah kerana tidak menyatakan secara spesifik bilakah tarikh kesalahan tersebut dilakukan - seksyen 153 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - seksyen 26 Kanun Keseksaan - “Reason to believe" - pertuduhan tersebut adalah jelas dan dan teratur - kesalahan yang berlaku pada bulan September tahun 2016 tidak menimbulkan sebarang kekeliruan di pihak perayu - ketiadaan Izin Untuk Mendakwa di bawah seksyen 58 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (Undang-Undang Malaysia Akta 694) - Pendakwaan kesalahan - seksyen 18 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - seksyen 24 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 – kesalahan dibawah seksyen 471/465 Kanun Keseksaan - tiada keperluan undang-undang untuk pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan Izin Untuk Mendakwa bagi kesalahan ini - keizinan tersirat (implicit consent) daripada pendakwa raya kerana timbalan pendakwa raya adalah alter ego kepada pendakwa raya - seksyen 376(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - seksyen 162 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Recall of witnesses when charge altered – tidak wujud salah laksana keadilan (miscarriage of justice) - Perkara 5(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - seksyen 158 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Court may alter or add to charge - seksyen 159 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - When trial may proceed immediately after alteration or addition - tiada apa-apa kecacatan pada pertuduhan - faktor pemberatan kepentingan awam

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law

Judges (3)

Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan Coram

Counsel (4)

Alias Ibrahim & Co. Firm Ahmad Nizam bin Mohamed Counsel Appellant Farah Yasmin binti Salleh Counsel Prosecution Muhammad Asraf bin Mohamed Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Che Sa'adon bin Che Yahya Appellant

Case Significance

Confirms that a forgery charge under the Penal Code is not defective merely for stating the month rather than the exact date of the offence, provided the accused suffers no confusion or prejudice, and upholds the substituted sentence of imprisonment and a fine.

This Court of Appeal decision, disposing of two consolidated criminal appeals heard together, concerns forgery offences committed by a government agent and the validity of the charge framed against him. The prosecution, brought following investigation by the Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission), alleged that the appellant, acting as an agent of the Government of Malaysia at a state farmers' organisation in Kuala Terengganu, had in September 2016 dishonestly used a document — a fish-purchase receipt claim — with intent to deceive his principal. The charges engaged several provisions of the Kanun Keseksaan (Penal Code): seksyen 471 (using as genuine a forged document), seksyen 464 (making a false document), seksyen 465 (punishment for forgery), together with the definitions of "dishonestly" in seksyen 24 and "reason to believe" in seksyen 26. A central ground of appeal was that the alternative charge was defective and invalid, under section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for failing to state specifically the date on which the offence was committed. The Court of Appeal rejected that contention, holding that the charge was clear and properly framed and that specifying the offence as having occurred in September 2016 caused no confusion or prejudice to the appellant in meeting the case against him. Having found no merit in the challenge to the conviction or to the charge, the Court dismissed the appellant's rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman (appeal against conviction and sentence). It upheld the High Court's earlier decision of 11 May 2022, which had set aside the Sessions Court's order and substituted a sentence of one week's imprisonment commencing 11 May 2022 and a fine of RM10,000, in default nine months' imprisonment. The decision illustrates that a charge is not rendered defective merely because it identifies the month rather than a precise date of the offence, provided the accused is not thereby confused or prejudiced.

Summary

The appellant, a general manager of Pertubuhan Peladang Negeri Terengganu, was convicted of using a forged fish purchase receipt to fraudulently claim RM600 when only RM300 was paid, under s.18 of the MACC Act 2009 and alternatively s.471/465 of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence, upholding the High Court's sentence of one week imprisonment and RM10,000 fine for each charge.

Was the charge invalid for not stating the precise date of the offence?

No. The Court of Appeal held that the charge was clear and properly framed, and that identifying the offence as having occurred in September 2016 did not offend section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code or cause any confusion or prejudice to the appellant. It rejected the argument that the alternative charge was defective for failing to state the specific date, finding that the appellant was able to understand and meet the case against him.

What was the outcome of the appeal and the sentence?

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against both conviction and sentence. It upheld the High Court's decision of 11 May 2022, which had set aside the Sessions Court's order and substituted a sentence of one week's imprisonment commencing 11 May 2022 together with a fine of RM10,000, in default nine months' imprisonment. That disposition therefore stood following the dismissal of the appeal.

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

s 162

Indian Criminal Procedure Code 1974 (Cap 593)

s 217

Cases Cited (19)

SLR (1)

[1995] 3 SLR 701

MY (18)

[1969] MLRA 382 [1984] 2 MLJ 165 [2003] 2 CLJ 19 [2003] 2 MLJ 97 [2004] 4 CLJ 309 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2008] 2 CLJ 284 [2008] 2 MLJ 87 [2009] 6 CLJ 626 [2009] 6 MLJ 1 [2010] 3 CLJ 377 [2010] 3 MLJ 509 [2010] 6 MLJ 22 [2010] 8 CLJ 501 [2012] 4 MLJ 149 [2012] 7 CLJ 557 [2013] 4 MLJ 693 [2017] 5 CLJ 58

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (t-06b-38-05-2022)