1. ) YUVAN RAJ A/L VIJAYAKUMAR 2. ) SARAWAN RAJ A/L ARJUNAN

1. ) YUVAN RAJ A/L VIJAYAKUMAR 2. ) SARAWAN RAJ A/L ARJUNAN

Prosecution failed to discharge its burden to establish a prima facie case under section 403 because key independent evidence (CCTV) was not seized or produced, identification and documentary links to the accused were weak (gatepass only linked invoiced goods to Sarawan), goods were seized from the driver not from the accused, and the investigation was admitted to be incomplete; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to enter their defence and they were discharged and acquitted at the close of prosecution.

Citation
BA-83-71-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: YUVAN RAJ A/L VIJAYAKUMAR; Accused: SARAWAN RAJ A/L ARJUNAN
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 October 2025
Case Number
BA-83-71-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / At Close of Prosecution No Prima Facie Found; Accused Discharged
Outcome
Both accused acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution (no prima facie) for offence under section 403 Penal Code read with section 34 where applicable.
Legal Topics
Section 403 Penal Code, Prima Facie Test, Burden of Proof, Identification Evidence, CCTV Evidence, Acquittal at Close of Prosecution
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Section 403 Penal Code Prima Facie Test Burden of Proof Identification Evidence CCTV Evidence Acquittal at Close of Prosecution

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

YUVAN RAJ A/L VIJAYAKUMAR

Accused

SARAWAN RAJ A/L ARJUNAN

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / At Close of Prosecution No Prima Facie Found; Accused Discharged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under s403 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether elements of s403 (movable property, belonging to another, misappropriation and dishonest intention) were proved
  3. 3 Sufficiency and reliability of identification and documentary evidence (gatepass, invoices)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to discharge its burden to establish a prima facie case under section 403 because key independent evidence (CCTV) was not seized or produced, identification and documentary links to the accused were weak (gatepass only linked invoiced goods to Sarawan), goods were seized from the driver not from the accused, and the investigation was admitted to be incomplete; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to enter their defence and they were discharged and acquitted at the close of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Both accused acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution (no prima facie) for offence under section 403 Penal Code read with section 34 where applicable.

Orders

  • Accused Yuvan Raj a/l Vijayakumar and Sarawan Raj a/l Arjunan are acquitted and discharged.
  • Bail money returned to surety.