ANG THEAM CHOOM V P P

ANG THEAM CHOOM V P P

The Court held the magistrate's inadvertent misstatement about who bore the burden did not amount to a misdirection because the record showed the correct standard was applied and no miscarriage of justice occurred; the s.63(1) order for RM802 with interest was valid because the amount was certified by an authorised...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ANG THEAM CHOOM V P P
Parties
Appellant: Ang Theam Choom; Respondent: Public Prosecutor; Complainant: Mohd. Termizi bin L. Karim; Named Employee/complainant: Norma bte Seman
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court Upholding Magistrate's Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and orders of Magistrate and High Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Misdirection of Law, Authority to Prosecute, Sanction/consent to Prosecute, Statutory Consequential Orders Under EPF Act
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Labour/employment Law Administrative Law Criminal Procedure Burden of Proof Misdirection of Law Authority to Prosecute Sanction/consent to Prosecute +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ang Theam Choom

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Mohd. Termizi bin L. Karim

Complainant

Norma bte Seman

Named Employee/complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court Upholding Magistrate's Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether magistrate's inadvertent misstatement of burden of proof amounted to misdirection and occasioned miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether ordering payment under s.63(1) of the EPF Act without stating the amount in the criminal charge violated constitutional right to defence
  3. 3 Whether the prosecuting officer had authority to conduct the prosecution when such authority was given after issuance and service of summons but before trial began

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the magistrate's inadvertent misstatement about who bore the burden did not amount to a misdirection because the record showed the correct standard was applied and no miscarriage of justice occurred; the s.63(1) order for RM802 with interest was valid because the amount was certified by an authorised officer and the appellant had opportunities to dispute it; authority to conduct the prosecution given before the trial commenced was legally sufficient, distinguishing institution from conduct, and therefore the conviction, the RM500 fine and the order to pay RM802 with interest were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and orders of Magistrate and High Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and RM500 fine (in default 14 days imprisonment) under s.43(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 affirmed