PETER ANTHONY v Pendakwa Raya

w-09-92-04-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 3 March 2025 • W-09-92-04/2023 • 23 min read

1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

We therefore find the conviction against the accused is safe. We dismiss the appellant’s appeal and uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (w-09-92-04-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

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

Criminal Procedure Criminal Law

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

Case Significance

Clarifies that section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies only to High Court trials, so an unsigned Sessions Court charge is at most a curable minor irregularity under section 422 causing no injustice, and that after amending a charge no fresh sanction under section 129 is needed where the Public Prosecutor's consent under section 58 of the MACC Act 2009 has been given.

This Court of Appeal decision, delivered in a judgment by Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan JCA (sitting with Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim and Azmi Ariffin JJCA), concerns an appeal against a conviction for forgery for the purpose of cheating under section 468 of the Penal Code. The appellant had been convicted in the Sessions Court, and the High Court had dismissed his first appeal, leading to this further appeal, which was heard and dismissed on 4 March 2025 with broad grounds delivered that day and full grounds furnished later. The appeal raised preliminary procedural objections as well as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

On the preliminary issues, the court rejected each objection. It held that the requirement in section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the charge applies only to trials in the High Court, not to Sessions Court proceedings, so the complaint that the charge sheet was unsigned did not avail the appellant; at most, the absence of a signature was a minor irregularity under section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code that had occasioned no injustice. It further held that no fresh sanction under section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code was required after the charge was amended, because what was needed was the consent of the Public Prosecutor under section 58 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, and that consent had duly been given. On the merits, the court was satisfied that the Sessions Court had conducted a thorough judicial evaluation of the circumstantial evidence with honour and accuracy, and it found no error justifying appellate intervention. Holding the conviction to be safe, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The judgment is a useful statement that section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code is confined to High Court trials and that an unsigned charge is, at most, a curable irregularity.

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.

How did the court deal with the objection that the charge sheet was unsigned?

It held that section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, concerning the charge, applies only to High Court trials and not to Sessions Court proceedings. The absence of a signature was therefore, at most, a minor irregularity under section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code that had caused no injustice, and did not vitiate the conviction.

Was a fresh sanction required after the charge was amended?

No. The court held that no sanction under section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code was required; what was needed was the Public Prosecutor's consent under section 58 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, which had duly been given. Finding the conviction safe, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.