LOGESHVARAN A/L SEGARAN

LOGESHVARAN A/L SEGARAN

Prosecution proved the essential elements of the offences by credible eyewitness testimony, recorded communications and marked-money exchange; the statutory presumption under section 50 ASPRM applied and the accused failed to rebut it; consequent conviction under section 16 ASPRM (and alternatively section 165 Penal Code) was warranted and sentencing within statutory limits was appropriate.

Citation
JA-61R-2-03/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Logeshvaran A/L Segaran
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 December 2019
Case Number
JA-61R-2-03/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Convicted in Sessions Court; Appeal to High Court Pending; Sentence Execution Suspended
Outcome
Guilty; convicted on primary offence (Section 16 ASPRM) and on alternative offence (Section 165 Penal Code); sentences imposed; execution of sentence suspended pending appeal; bail increased.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Acceptance of Gratification, Section 16 ASPRM 2009, Section 17 ASPRM 2009, Section 50 ASPRM Presumption, Section 165 Penal Code, Sentencing Principles
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Public Office Misconduct Bribery Acceptance of Gratification Section 16 ASPRM 2009 Section 17 ASPRM 2009 Section 50 ASPRM Presumption +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Logeshvaran A/L Segaran

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Convicted in Sessions Court; Appeal to High Court Pending; Sentence Execution Suspended

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused corruptly solicited and/or received gratification as inducement not to arrest or interfere with complainant's workers
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved elements of offences beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether accused rebutted statutory presumption under section 50 ASPRM

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved the essential elements of the offences by credible eyewitness testimony, recorded communications and marked-money exchange; the statutory presumption under section 50 ASPRM applied and the accused failed to rebut it; consequent conviction under section 16 ASPRM (and alternatively section 165 Penal Code) was warranted and sentencing within statutory limits was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Guilty; convicted on primary offence (Section 16 ASPRM) and on alternative offence (Section 165 Penal Code); sentences imposed; execution of sentence suspended pending appeal; bail increased.

Orders

  • Convicted on Pertuduhan Pertama under Section 16 ASPRM: imprisonment 3 years and fine RM15,000; failing payment 6 months imprisonment
  • Convicted on alternative Pertuduhan Kedua under Section 165 Penal Code: imprisonment 12 months to run concurrently with sentence for Pertuduhan Pertama