Catchwords

71 legal topics with a dedicated page

Conclusion 45 Introduction 39 Abstract 20 ABSTRACT 18 Keywords 17 KEYWORDS 17 Post Winding Up – Application by Liquidator to compel Submission for Statement of Affairs of former director of the company– Submission for Statement of Affairs by former Director of Company before liquidation of company – Whether a former director can be compelled to submit a Statement of Affairs – Whether the liquidators’ request and application were procedurally proper – Whether the former director status as a nominee director or his claimed lack of information relieves him of the obligation - Inherent Jurisdiction of Court - Section 461 Companies Act – Section 484 Companies Act 2016 – Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012 – Form 17 of Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 12 Rayuan Perayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman ditolak - Mahkamah ini mengekalkan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen Muar 12 Seksyen 26A Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 (ATIPSOM) – kes-kes diremitkan untuk pembelaan dipanggil setelah Mahkamah Rayuan mendapati satu kes prima facie telah berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan di akhir kes pendakwaan - samada keterangan tertuduh-tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munsabah dalam kes pendakwaan – sama ada sebarang ketinggalan dalam memproses masuk migran-migran hanya satu ketinggalan yang bersifat tatatertib dan langsung tidak menunjukkan penglibatan dalam kegiatan penyeludupan migran – sama ada penggunaan ayat-ayat yang sama dalam deposisi migran-migran yang berlainan adalah hasil “copy and paste” dari satu deposisi ke deposisi yang lain dan menimbulkan keraguan samada deposisi-deposisi tersebut sememangnya adalah versi migran-migran tersebut - sama ada keutamaan diberikan kepada pemakaian s.18 SOSMA berbanding s.34 ATIPSOM bagi kesalahan di bawah BAB IIIA ATIPSOM 9 INSURANCE: Third party risks insurance policy - Transfer of interest - Failure to register change of ownership of motor vehicle under section 13(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 – Effect of. 8 INSURANCE: Third party claim– Whether registration imposes liability on insurer notwithstanding insured ceased to have insurable interest in the motor vehicle at the time of accident. 8 INSURANCE: Statutory presumption of liability under section 109(2) of the Road Transport Act 1987. 8 INSURANCE: Third party rights against insurer – Application for declaration pursuant to section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 – Service of cause papers to third party – Non-compliance with the proviso to section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 – Effect of. 8 INSURANCE: Statutory protection to road accident victims – Sections 90, 91, 94 95 to 107 of the Road Transport Act 1987. 8 INSURANCE: Third party rights against insurer – Claim under insurance policy –Statutory obligation of insurer to pay judgment sum obtained by third party under section 96(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987. 8 INSURANCE: Declaratory order under section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987- Whether suitable to determine liability in negligence arising out of use of motor vehicle. 8 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Investigation conducted by Malaysia Competition Commission regarding complaints against company for bid rigging –Proposed decision issued – Proposed decision challenged for invalid investigation – When challenge available – Procedural impropriety – Sections 14, 15, 18, 36, and 40 of the Competition Act 2010 8 Land reference-High Court allowed increase in compensation-subsequent to the decision, the party requesting for acquisition applied to be added as party interested/intervener and to set aside the High Court decision to increase compensation-application of intervener allowed-land reference to be re-heard-intervener then filed application to set aside land reference on grounds Form O was filed by Land Administrator out of time contrary to s.38(5) of Land Acquisition Act-Form O was filed 2 months late-land owner then filed application under s.38(6) and (7) for extension of time-whether provision was mandatory-court had jurisdiction to hear application for extension-whether the extension can be applied for after Form O was filed-whether provision envisages an extension to be applied for before Form O filed-whether prejudice occasioned to the intervener by the application for extension of time. 8 The learned Sessions Court Judge acquitted and discharged the Respondent of twenty-two (22) charges under section 16(a)(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”). The charges concerned the alleged receipt of gratification amounting to RM44,700.00, which was said to have been deposited into the Respondent’s RHB Bank account on multiple occasions between July 2017 and December 2018. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant filed the present appeals before this Court. In the considered view of this Court, once the statutory presumption is triggered, the evidential and legal burden no longer rests on the prosecution to negate the accused person’s explanation. Instead, the burden shifts to the accused person to rebut the presumption. As such, there is a serious misdirection of law on the part of the learned Sessions Court Judge. This misdirection in law materially affected the assessment of the defence and undermined the ultimate finding of acquittal. Upon consideration, this Court is satisfied that the acquittal entered by the learned Sessions Court Judge is unsafe and ought to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal by the Public Prosecutor is allowed. The order of acquittal and discharge is hereby set aside. 8 whether the Court of Appeal can strike out a criminal appeal (Appeal) filed by the Public Prosecutor (PP) against an individual respondent (X) when : (a) the notice of appeal cannot be served on X; and (b) the PP does not apply to the Court of Appeal to withdraw the Appeal? 8 (2) if the Court of Appeal has struck out the Appeal, does the Court of Appeal have the subsequent power to allow the PP’s application to reinstate the Appeal? 8 (3) if the Court of Appeal reinstates the Appeal - (a) can the Court of Appeal issue a warrant to arrest X (Warrant) under s 56A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA)? (b) if the Warrant has been executed against X, can the Court of Appeal grant bail to X pending the disposal of the Appeal pursuant to s 56A CJA? 8 AND 7 Brief facts 7 Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 – Child sentence under Section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001- "detained in prison during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) or Ruler"- does not violate Article 5 because the child offender is convicted after the due process of a trial and at its conclusion, the sentence passed is in accordance with a validly passed law- Doctrine of reasonable classification- doctrine of proportionality-ultimate objective was to place child offenders in a category of their own so as to not suffer the extreme fate of adult offenders with the view to being given an opportunity at rehabilitation and their eventual re-integration back into society- reasonable nexus that existed between the discrimination and that legislative aim sought to be achieved-no violation or fundamental breach of Article 8-alternative remedies provided for under the law for the Applicants to be dealt with according to Section 97(4) of the Child Act 2001, Regulation 54 and 113 of the Prison Regulations 2000 read together with power of pardon under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution-remedy afforded exclusively to the Applicants via section 97(5) of the Child Act 2001 provides the opportunity for them to be released earlier from detention, by virtue of the yearly recommendation by the Board of Visiting Justices. This opportunity is not afforded to a convict of the age of majority- Section 2 and Section 3 of Act 847 makes in clear that the pre-condition for the application under Section 3 is that the person must be on death row at the date of enforcement of Act 847- Applicants’ squarely outside the purview of Act 847 7 Criminal appeals – against conviction and sentences under s. 12 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 7 ATIPSOM Act - s. 12 - in order to establish the act of trafficking in persons, the prosecution must establish the element of coercion - conviction of the 2nd Appellant on all charges is manifestly unsafe - because of his involvement in processing the victims’ wages - such an administrative payroll function is factually and legally insufficient to satisfy the elements of the offences, particularly when the evidence demonstrates that the payments were made solely on behalf of Impact Metal. 7 Appeal against sentence - this is the 2nd Appellant’s first offence, coupled with the fact that there was an absolute absence of violence or physical harm inflicted upon the victims - all logistics and arrangements to traffic the victims into this jurisdiction were orchestrated solely by the 1st Appellant - although the charges involve different victims, all offences were committed with proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design, thereby justifying the order for the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. 7 CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Soliciting gratification – Offence under s. 16(a)(B) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Elements of offence – Whether gratification corruptly solicited as inducement for officer of public body to forbear from performing official duty – Meaning of "inducement" – Whether purpose of solicitation may be inferred from surrounding circumstances – Whether claim that money was for bail and not a bribe a valid defence – Whether officer of PDRM an officer of a public body – Proof of status by certificate under s. 55 MACC Act 2009 – Whether certificate admissible as prima facie proof of position held and emoluments received 7 CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Obtaining gratification – Offence under s. 17(a) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Elements of offence – Agent corruptly obtaining gratification as inducement for forbearing to do act in relation to principal's affairs – Whether enforcement of drug laws falls within affairs of PDRM as principal – Meaning of "principal" under s. 3 MACC Act 2009 – Whether forbearance from official duty established where detained persons were released without formal arrest, police report, or investigation 7 CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Statutory presumption – s. 50(1) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Whether presumption arises upon proof that gratification was received or solicited – Distinction between duty to raise reasonable doubt and heavier duty to rebut presumption on balance of probabilities – Whether bare denials, conjectures and afterthought evidence sufficient to rebut presumption – Whether rebuttal requires affirmative admissible evidence 7 CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Attempt to obtain gratification – Offence under s. 17(a) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Elements of attempt – Distinction between preparation and attempt – Whether conduct had progressed beyond preparation into attempt – Whether interruption by extraneous cause, namely MACC trap operation, prevents conviction for attempt 7 CRIMINAL LAW: Common intention – s. 34 Penal Code – Whether s. 34 creates substantive offence or is a rule of evidence – Participation as essential element – Meaning of participation – Whether mere presence at scene of offence sufficient to establish participation – Whether presence must carry quality of facilitating or promoting the offence – Whether court may draw collective finding of common intention against all accused without identifying individual participatory acts – Whether prosecution must establish evidential minimum of participation individually against each accused 7 CRIMINAL LAW: Common intention – Acquittal of co-accused – Whether absence of any act, demand, threat or handling of gratification by one accused negates participation under s. 34 Penal Code – Whether concessions by prosecution's own witnesses and principal complainant that accused performed no act of participation fatal to charge – Whether doubt arising from prosecution's own case, independently of accused's defence, sufficient to warrant acquittal 7 CRIMINAL LAW: Evidence – Admissibility of recorded telephone conversation – s. 43(3) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Whether written authorisation required for recording made with consent and cooperation of one participant – Whether recording falls within prohibition against interception where only one party to conversation was unaware of recording – Admissibility of document not tendered by prosecution – s. 51A Criminal Procedure Code – Whether s. 51A empowers court to compel prosecution to adduce document disclosed pre-trial but not tendered at trial – Failure to cross-examine on crucial matters – Whether unchallenged evidence must be accepted 7 CRIMINAL LAW: Evidence – Credibility of single witness – Whether w 7 judicial review applications - decision of local authorities concerning notices of new valuation or Notis Senarai Nilaian Baru - sections 133, 137, 141 and 146 of the Local Government Act 1976 (“the LGA 1976”) - whether the information provided in the Notices were sufficient to identify the Pylons as holdings for the purposes of section 137 of the LGA 1976 - the proper interpretation of the “owner” of a “holding” in Melaka & Penang within the context of the LGA 1976. 7 WTK REALTY SDN. BHD. … APPELLANT (COMPANY NO. 74536-H) 6 1. KATHRYN MA WAI FONG 2. SOUTHWIND PLANTATION SDN. BHD. … RESPONDENTS 6 whether there has been a contravention of s 132D(1) of CA, and the issuances of the impugned shares in the three companies are null and void - whether the court ought to validate the issuance and allotment of the impugned shares to WKN under s 63 and/or s 355 of CA - the High Court and Court of Appeal had erred in their application of the Duomatic principle - The proper approach would have been the application of the specific statutory provision in the Companies Act 1965 that deals with validation by the courts, i.e. s 63 and/or 355 CA. 6 HDA 1976 – developer obligations, good workmanship, quality materials, luxury housing standards; HDLR 1989 Reg 11(1B) – SPA, DLP, contracting out limits; SPA – breach, workmanship, materials, implied terms; Latent vs Patent Defects – DLP scope, recoverability; DRFs & FFs – evidentiary weight, forgery, burden of proof; Contractual Interpretation – business common sense, implied terms; Causation – ‘but for’ test, multiple causes, apportionment; Expert Evidence – architects, quantity surveyors, construction defects; Quantum of Damages – rectification costs, s.74 Contracts Act; Cross-Appeals – Rule 8(1) RCA, procedural propriety; Fresh Evidence – s.69 CJA, Rule 7(3A) RCA, Ladd v Marshall; Consumer Protection – statutory safeguards, HDA social legislation; Housing Disputes – remedies, limits on developer defences; Forgery & Evidence – civil proof, oral vs expert; Statutory Protection – contracting out limits, homebuyer protection. 6 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB) dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama - Isu - Isu Di Peringkat Rayuan: (i) sama ada terdapat ketiadaan pengetahuan tertuduh-tertuduh terhadap dadah yang dijumpai - (ii) sama ada terdapat ketiadaan pengetahuan tertuduh-tertuduh tentang sifat sebenar dadah yang dibawa - (iii) sama ada wujud pembelaan pembawa tidak bersalah (“innocent carrier") - (iv) sama ada wujud ugutan (duress) - (v) sama ada Notis Alcontara telah diberikan dengan sempurna - (vi) sama ada pertimbangan sewajarnya telah diberikan terhadap keterangan SD9 - anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 94 Kanun Keseksaan - Act to which a person is compelled by threats - ugutan hendaklah bersifat imminent, persistent and extreme at the time of the commission of the offence - wilful blindness - versi pembelaan keenam-enam tertuduh adalah tidak kredibel, pemikiran terkemudian, rekaan dan penafian kosong semata-mata - keterangan SD9 nyata tidak konsisten dengan keterangan tertuduh-tertuduh - pembelaan bersifat simple denial - Sabitan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 selamat untuk dikekalkan - Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 (Akta 846) pada 4 Julai 2023 - hukuman pemenjaraan selama tiga puluh (30) tahun dari tarikh tangkap (11 Ogos 2018) dan 15 kali sebatan dikekalkan 6 On 8.11.2024, the Assistant Director of Manpower allowed all the Respondents’ claim for wages. Issue was whether the Respondents were entitled to their salary upon their arrival in the country or only as and when they were employed by third parties. Appellant argued that they were entitled to deduct the Respondents' salary for advances and poor performance. 6 Undang-undang jenayah-dadah berbahaya-seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952- sama ada elemen pemilikan dan pengedaran secara langsung berjaya dibuktikan-sama ada kegagalan memberikan kata-kata amaran sebelum acupakai dilaksanakan menjejaskan hak tertuduh-sama ada pembelaan "innocent carrier" relevan-sama ada kata-kata amaran telah diberikan secara efektif dan berkesan-sama ada rampasan telefon bimbit yang tidak dibuat semasa serbuan dan tidak ada borang geledah dan tandatangan tertuduh adalah fatal-sama ada pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie-tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri 6 There were nine charges preferred against the accused in this case. Five were for trafficking drugs under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA/the Act), three for possession of drugs under section 12 of the same Act and one charge under section 12(2) read together with section 39A(2) of the same. 6 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Sentencing – Dangerous Drugs – Whether sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed rather than death penalty – Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act, 2023, 554. 6 Seksyen 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Kesalahan memberi atau menerima suapan oleh ejen - Seksyen 19 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Penerima atau pemberi suapan melakukan suatu kesalahan tanpa mengambil kira maksud tidak dilaksanakan atau perkara tidak berkaitan dengan hal ehwal atau perniagaan principal - Seksyen 24(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Penalti bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 dan 23 - Seksyen 50 (1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Anggapan dalam kesalahan tertentu - Tafsiran seksyen 3 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan 2001 mengenai makna "aktiviti haram" - Seksyen 4 (1)(b) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan 2001 - Kesalahan pengubahan wang haram - Seksyen 70 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan 2001 - Standard pembuktian - Pembelaan “innocent explanation” - Mengakas anggapan di bawah seskyen 50(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Responden telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap keterangan kes pendakwaan - Inferens di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai terhadap pendakwaan - Tiada pertimbangan semula “revisit” - Syak wasangka “suspicion” tidak boleh mengambil tempat pembuktian melampaui keraguan munasabah - Rayuan Pendakwaraya ditolak - Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi mengesahkan Perintah Mahkamah Sesyen membebaskan dan melepaskan Responden di akhir kes pembelaan di atas kesemua pertuduhan yang dikenakan terhadap beliau dikekalkan. 6 (2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a). 6 Keywords: 6 Pool Betting Act 1967; Federal Constitution - Articles 74. 75, 80, 81 and List I and List II of Ninth Schedule; betting and lotteries; Local Government Act 1976; business premises license; assessment of damages. 6 Kesemua hukuman penjara berjalan serentak. 6 Rayuan oleh lima perayu terhadap tuduhan pindaan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan KK dibaca bersama seksyen 34 KK kerana melakukan kesalahan bunuh. 5 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Pertama) - seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Kedua) - Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1962 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 30(5) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Ketiga) - Timbalan Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan Pertuduhan Pertama (Pindaan) untuk Pertuduhan Pertama dibawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kedua-dua perayu menarik balik rayuan terhadap pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga – Mahkamah mempertimbangkan mitigasi peringanan hukuman oleh kedua-dua perayu serta faktor pemberatan seperti kepentingan awam, keseriusan kesalahan dan trend hukuman - Rayuan perayu-perayu bagi pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga dibatalkan - Rayuan perayu-perayu bagi pertuduhan pertama dibenarkan - Perayu-perayu didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kedua-dua perayu dikenakan hukuman pemenjaraan selama sembilan (9) tahun berkuatkuasa dari tarikh tangkap (7 Oktober 2020) dan sepuluh (10) kali sebatan. 5 The Core Issues 5 allegations of undue preference, premised on voluntary settlements said to have been made without valuable consideration and not in good faith - fraudulent preference - application for a validation order in respect of a payment rendered void as the payment was made after the presentation of the winding-up petition. - (i) the distinct statutory requirements governing undue preference as opposed to fraudulent preference; (ii) whether proof of a dominant intention to prefer remains a necessary element for fraudulent preference; (iii) the scope of the recognised exceptions where payments are made under genuine commercial pressure to avert the imminent collapse of the company; (iv) the scope of the directors’ duties and (iv) the circumstances in which the court may properly grant validation of payments otherwise void against the liquidator. - Companies Act 1965 (“CA 1965”) - Insolvency Act 1967 (“IA 1967”). 5 Criminal Procedure – Sentence – Appeal against sentence – Charges under s 14(a) and (d) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 – whether sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed had crushing effect on accused – Whether sentence proportional to offence – Not manifestly excessive – Whether offences committed separate and distinct – Whether one transaction rule applicable – Whether sentences should be made to run concurrently 5 Appeal against conviction and sentence – Section 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Section 9(1) of the Poison Act 1952 – Whether the elements of possession and knowledge was proven – Whether preparatory acts amount to trafficking - Whether the presumption of adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 can only be drawn if there has been withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence - Whether failure to cross-examine the accused persons was fatal to the prosecution’s case - Whether High Court Judge had considered and evaluated the defence in its entirety 5 Judgment after trial – Liability - Insurance claims by the insureds for loss and damage arising from a fire incident – Whether the insureds entitled to claims extended on indemnity basis - Whether the fire was accidental and deliberately caused – Whether the Plaintiff in breach of the Insurance Policy which restricted the storage and to exclude liability of the insurer – The National Fire Protection Association 921: Guides for Fire and Explosion Investigations – Examination of scientific component by the experts – Examination of “Multiple Seats of Fire” Theory – Whether there is full room involvement – Whether the low-level burnings may cause separate fires - Expert’s failure to support their narrative of incendiary fire ignited in the absence of evidence of any accelerant at the identified multiple seats of fire – The Court’s found that the fire was accidental and not deliberately caused – The assessment or measurements available for verification of the volume of oils is based very much on estimation and unsupported data. The Warranty has not thus not been breached by the Plaintiff. 5 19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 19) 5 (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that- 5 (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; 5 Company law – Application for leave to commence meeting of scheme of creditors – Application to set aside order granting leave – Application to set aside dismissed by HCJ – Whether HCJ had erred in dismissing the Setting-Aside Application – Whether Leave Application constituted an abuse of process on ground that it was not made bona fide – Whether HCJ should have considered facts before him at the Settling-Aside Application – Companies Act 2016 section 366(1) 5 Company law – Application to sanction proposed scheme of arrangement – Sanction granted – Appeal against decision of HCJ in sanctioning scheme of creditors – Whether HCJ had considered purpose and conduct surrounding the Scheme of Arrangement – Companies Act 2016 section 366(4) 5 criminal procedure-section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and section 8 of the Firearms (Special Penalty) section 39B-whether the accused had actual possession of the dangerous drug exhibits and possession of the firearm - whether the presumption of trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act applies- the prosecution failed to exclude access of a third party to the dangerous drugs and firearm found in room 2 of the condominium unit- the accused did not have the access card to the condominium unit-the accused did not live in the condominium on full-time basis-whether section 114(g) applies against the prosecution for failure to call a material witness-failure by the police to administer caution 5 Civil Procedure — Order 14A and Order 33 r 2 ROC 2012 — Preliminary determination in five forestry and land concession disputes — Alleged unlawful termination by State authority — Whether questions of law suitable for summary disposal where contractual performance, statutory compliance under s 20 National Forestry Act 1984, plantation progress and alleged breaches were disputed — Applications dismissed. 5 The Appellant in this case was allegedly misusing his position as Senior Assistant Fire Superintendent by proposing his wife’s company for ten services and supplies as he was responsible for managing procurement requests for supplies and services needed by the station. He was charged in the Sessions Court in relation to five separate cases. In each case, the Appellant faced two charges under Section 23 read together with Section 24 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC Act 2009). At the end of the defence’s case, the trial judge applied the presumption under Section 50(1) of the MACC Act to the case and convicted the Appellant on all charges and sentenced him accordingly. Dissatisfied with both the conviction and the sentence, the Appellant appealed to this Court. This Court, having considered the totality of circumstances, including the failure to call a material complainant, the improper cumulative reliance on statutory presumptions, the credible and corroborated defence explanation and the absence of evidence establishing gratification, finds that the conviction is unsafe. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Appellant is acquitted and discharged of all charges. 5 Criminal Law — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Sexual offences against children — Sexual communication, physical sexual assault, and rape by using position of authority — Whether trial judge erred in finding prima facie case — Whether conviction safe — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, ss 11(1)(a), 14(a), (c), (d) — Penal Code, s 376(2)(f) 5 Evidence — Credibility of witness — Child witness — Uncorroborated evidence — Court may convict on uncorroborated evidence of child if "unusually convincing" — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, s 18 — Whether discrepancies in testimony material — Adverse inference — Failure to call material witnesses — Whether prosecution obliged to call every possible witness — Whether inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 warranted — Witnesses not eyewitnesses to sexual acts — No adverse inference drawn 5 Criminal Procedure — Charge — Defective charge — Section 11(a) instead of s 11(1)(a) — Typographical error — Whether curable under s 422 Criminal Procedure Code — Accused not misled — Charge not defective — Prima facie case — Maximum evaluation — Whether prosecution evidence sufficient to call for defence — Section 182A Criminal Procedure Code — Trial judge's finding affirmed 5 Sentencing — Rape and sexual offences against children — Principal in position of authority — Sexual grooming of minor — Sentence of 15 years imprisonment — Whether manifestly excessive — Mitigating factors considered — Aggravating factors overwhelming — Public interest — Sentence affirmed — Concurrent sentences — Multiple charges — Thirteen charges across five cases — Sentences ordered to run concurrently — Effective term of 15 years — Whether wrong in principle — Totality principle 5 Seksyen 130J (1) (b) KK - Seksyen 130F (a) KK - Seksyen 130JD (1) KK - Seksyen 130JB (1) (a) KK - Seksyen 130E KK 5