w-09-92-04-2023 — PETER ANTHONY v Pendakwa Raya

Catchwords

Preliminary Issues – The appellant argued the charge sheet was unsigned (breach of s.172 CPC) and that no new sanction was obtained after the charge was amended. The Court of Appeal held s.172 CPC applies only to High Court cases, not Sessions Court. Absence of a signature was at most a minor irregularity under s.422 CPC, not causing injustice. Sanction under s.129 CPC was not required; only the Public Prosecutor’s consent under s.58 MACC Act was needed, which was duly given. Preliminary objections were therefore dismissed. Circumstantial Evidence & Credibility – Although there was no direct evidence of forgery, circumstantial evidence established that only the appellant could have forged the P2 letter, which benefited him in securing the Phase 2B M&E contract. The testimonies of SP3, SP8, and SP9 were accepted as credible, as they had no financial interest and were deceived by the appellant. The appellant’s defences were rejected as mere denials and afterthoughts, while expert testimony (SB3) was deemed speculative. Findings & Appeal – The Sessions Court concluded that the appellant forged and used the P2 letter dishonestly to mislead UMS officials and the Prime Minister, with intent to cheat. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld these findings, giving deference to the trial court’s assessment of witnesses. The appellant’s claim of prejudice due to SP3’s later police report was rejected, as SP3 had been extensively cross-examined and the conviction was supported by independent and circumstantial evidence, including the appellant presenting the P2 letter to Dato’ Azlin and his company’s benefit.

Practice Areas

Preliminary Issues Circumstantial Evidence & Credibility Findings & Appeal

Judges (3)

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

Counsel (7)

Kow, Lau & Ezra Firm Emile Ezra Hussain Counsel Appellant Haresh Prakash Somiah Counsel Prosecution Nicholas Kow Counsel Appellant Nurul Atiqah binti Mohamad Alias Counsel Prosecution Putri Alyra Narisha Abdul Hadi Counsel Appellant Wan Shaharudin bin Wan Ladin Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Peter Anthony Appellant

Summary

The appellant, Managing Director of Asli Jati Sdn Bhd, was convicted of forgery for the purpose of cheating under s.468 Penal Code for inserting a false statement on a UMS letter presented to the Prime Minister's office to secure a government contract. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Sessions Court properly evaluated the circumstantial evidence establishing the appellant forged the letter, and the conviction was safe.

What was the outcome of PETER ANTHONY v Pendakwa Raya?

<p>The appellant, Managing Director of Asli Jati Sdn Bhd, was convicted of forgery for the purpose of cheating under s.468 Penal Code for inserting a ...

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code

s 172

Evidence Act 1950

s 114(g)

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

MACC Act 2009

s 58

Penal Code (Cap 574)

s 468

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)

[2010] 8 CLJ 501