1. ) NARESH NAIDU A/L APPALOONIODU 2. ) NORAZARUDIN BIN BAHARI

1. ) NARESH NAIDU A/L APPALOONIODU 2. ) NORAZARUDIN BIN BAHARI

The High Court upheld the magistrate's discharge of the accused because the prosecution failed to prove the two essential elements of Section 384 (intimidation causing fear of injury and fraudulent inducement to deliver property), the sole eyewitness (complainant) gave inconsistent and unreliable evidence, and the prosecution failed to produce and have witnesses identify the seized cash (amount seized inconsistent with alleged RM300), thereby failing to establish a prima facie case to call the accused to defend themselves.

Citation
BA-41LB(A)-7-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused/respondent: Naresh Naidu A/L Appalooniodu; Accused/respondent: Norazarudin bin Bahari
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 May 2025
Case Number
BA-41LB(A)-7-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 384 Read With Section 34 Penal Code / High Court (appellate Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. High Court affirmed Magistrate's order to acquit and discharge the accused without calling them to enter their defence.
Legal Topics
Extortion, Section 384 Penal Code, Common Intention (section 34), Appeal Against Acquittal, Exhibit Identification, Witness Credibility, Prima Facie Standard
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Extortion Section 384 Penal Code Common Intention (section 34) Appeal Against Acquittal Exhibit Identification +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Appellant/prosecutor

Naresh Naidu A/L Appalooniodu

Accused/respondent

Norazarudin bin Bahari

Accused/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 384 Read With Section 34 Penal Code / High Court (appellate Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case under Section 384 read with Section 34
  2. 2 Whether elements of intimidation causing fear of injury and fraudulent inducement to deliver property were proved
  3. 3 Whether failure to tender and have witnesses identify the seized cash fatally undermined the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the magistrate's discharge of the accused because the prosecution failed to prove the two essential elements of Section 384 (intimidation causing fear of injury and fraudulent inducement to deliver property), the sole eyewitness (complainant) gave inconsistent and unreliable evidence, and the prosecution failed to produce and have witnesses identify the seized cash (amount seized inconsistent with alleged RM300), thereby failing to establish a prima facie case to call the accused to defend themselves.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. High Court affirmed Magistrate's order to acquit and discharge the accused without calling them to enter their defence.

Orders

  • Magistrate's order to acquit and discharge accused (OKT1 and OKT2) is upheld by the High Court; appeal dismissed.