1. ) SAI A/P CHOM 2. ) YAP KOK LEONG 3. ) YEOH GIM HOOI

1. ) SAI A/P CHOM 2. ) YAP KOK LEONG 3. ) YEOH GIM HOOI

On a maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence the court found no credible proof that any accused made or caused the making of the false parts of P28[1]/P28[2] at the charged date/time/place or had the requisite intent to defraud; evidence against T2 and T3 was insufficient to establish nexus or knowledge for s.34 liability; therefore prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and the accused were acquitted and discharged under s.173(f)(ii) CPC.

Citation
KA-62-41-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Sai A/P Chom; Accused: Yap Kok Leong; Accused: Yeoh Gim Hooi
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 December 2024
Case Number
KA-62-41-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / End of Prosecution Case (acquittal Under S.173(f)(ii) Cpc)
Outcome
Tertuduh Pertama, Kedua dan Ketiga acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution case; released without being called to enter defence
Legal Topics
Section 468 Penal Code, Section 34 Penal Code (common Intention), Sections 463 and 464 Penal Code (forgery), Section 415 Penal Code (fraud), Section 29 Penal Code (document), Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code (end of Prosecution Case), Prima Facie Test, Joint Liability
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Forgery Fraud Evidence Law Administrative Registration Law Section 468 Penal Code Section 34 Penal Code (common Intention) Sections 463 and 464 Penal Code (forgery) +5 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Sai A/P Chom

Accused

Yap Kok Leong

Accused

Yeoh Gim Hooi

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / End of Prosecution Case (acquittal Under S.173(f)(ii) Cpc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether P28[1] and P28[2] constituted ‘documents’ under s.29 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether false entry in P28[1]/P28[2] amounted to forgery under ss.463 and 464 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether the forgery was committed with intent to defraud under s.415 Penal Code

Ratio Decidendi

On a maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence the court found no credible proof that any accused made or caused the making of the false parts of P28[1]/P28[2] at the charged date/time/place or had the requisite intent to defraud; evidence against T2 and T3 was insufficient to establish nexus or knowledge for s.34 liability; therefore prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and the accused were acquitted and discharged under s.173(f)(ii) CPC.

Court Disposition

Tertuduh Pertama, Kedua dan Ketiga acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution case; released without being called to enter defence

Orders

  • Acquit and discharge under s.173(f)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code (Akta 593)