JAMAL AHMED 1. ) Kementerian Dalam Negeri 2. ) pengarah imigresen Malaysia

JAMAL AHMED 1. ) Kementerian Dalam Negeri 2. ) pengarah imigresen Malaysia

Applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the seized RM39,500 and the mobile phone belonged to him; signature on the search list is not prima facie proof of ownership; s.407 CPC powers concerning forfeiture/confiscation are tied to written law under which conviction was had and the Applicant was never charged or convicted; therefore the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Citation
BB-89-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Applicant: Jamal Ahmed; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 July 2022
Case Number
BB-89-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.407 CPC for Return of Seized Property / Decision on Notice of Motion (judgment)
Outcome
Notice of Motion rejected
Legal Topics
Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code, Forfeiture and Confiscation, Burden of Proof, Search and Seizure, Deportation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Procedure Immigration Law Evidence Law Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code Forfeiture and Confiscation Burden of Proof Search and Seizure Deportation

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

Parties

Jamal Ahmed

Applicant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.407 CPC for Return of Seized Property / Decision on Notice of Motion (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant proved ownership of seized RM39,500 and a Samsung Galaxy A30
  2. 2 Whether s.407 CPC relief can be granted absent a conviction or prosecution application
  3. 3 What evidential standard applies to claims for return of seized property

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the seized RM39,500 and the mobile phone belonged to him; signature on the search list is not prima facie proof of ownership; s.407 CPC powers concerning forfeiture/confiscation are tied to written law under which conviction was had and the Applicant was never charged or convicted; therefore the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion rejected

Orders

  • Notice of Motion rejected