KENGKATHRAN A/L V.AKAMPRAM

KENGKATHRAN A/L V.AKAMPRAM

Prosecution failed to prove the essential mens rea and voluntariness required for an offence under Section 186 Penal Code given factual discrepancies and plausible innocent explanations; therefore no prima facie case on s.186 and accused is acquitted on that charge. Prosecution proved the elements of Regulation 3(1) relating to movement within an infected area during PKPD without permission; a prima facie case exists on that charge and the accused must be called to enter his defence under Regulation 3(1).

Citation
AA-83-393-04/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Kengkathran a/l V. Akampram
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 May 2025
Case Number
AA-83-393-04/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Close of Prosecution (decision Under S.173(f) Ktj)
Outcome
Charge 1 (Section 186 Penal Code): No prima facie case – accused not called to enter defence (acquitted at close of prosecution). Charge 2 (Regulation 3(1)): Prima facie case established – accused to be called to enter defence.
Legal Topics
Obstruction of Public Servant (section 186 Penal Code), Movement Restrictions / Infectious Diseases Regulations (regulation 3(1)), Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution, Mens Rea and Voluntariness
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Public Health Law Criminal Procedure Obstruction of Public Servant (section 186 Penal Code) Movement Restrictions / Infectious Diseases Regulations (regulation 3(1)) Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution Mens Rea and Voluntariness

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Kengkathran a/l V. Akampram

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Close of Prosecution (decision Under S.173(f) Ktj)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused wilfully obstructed a public servant contrary to Section 186 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether accused moved from one place to another within an infected area in breach of Regulation 3(1) Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Regulations 2020
  3. 3 Whether prosecution has made out a prima facie case to call accused to enter defence on either or both charges

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove the essential mens rea and voluntariness required for an offence under Section 186 Penal Code given factual discrepancies and plausible innocent explanations; therefore no prima facie case on s.186 and accused is acquitted on that charge. Prosecution proved the elements of Regulation 3(1) relating to movement within an infected area during PKPD without permission; a prima facie case exists on that charge and the accused must be called to enter his defence under Regulation 3(1).

Court Disposition

Charge 1 (Section 186 Penal Code): No prima facie case – accused not called to enter defence (acquitted at close of prosecution). Charge 2 (Regulation 3(1)): Prima facie case established – accused to be called to enter defence.

Orders

  • Count 1 under Section 186 Penal Code: acquitted (no prima facie case) and discharged at close of prosecution.
  • Count 2 under Regulation 3(1) Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Regulations 2020: prosecution has made out a prima facie case; call accused to enter defence.