Kavitha A/p Kalidasan [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Kavitha A/p Kalidasan [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

The evidence established the accused represented she could secure large business loans and induced the complainants to pay RM33,000 in processing fees though no loan applications were ever made; the accused's explanation that fees were for a bank officer was unproven and inconsistent, police reports were not probative as evidence in trial, defence did not raise reasonable doubt, and therefore convictions under section 420 and the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were safe to be affirmed.

Citation
WA-41S-39-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Kavitha a/p Kalidasan; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 December 2021
Case Number
WA-41S-39-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment (appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Cheating (section 420), Dishonesty, Sentencing, Appellate Review, Police Investigation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Fraud Penal Code Evidence Cheating (section 420) Dishonesty Sentencing Appellate Review +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kavitha a/p Kalidasan

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ingredients of cheating under section 420 Penal Code were proved
  2. 2 Whether accused had dishonest intention
  3. 3 Whether defence evidence and police reports raised reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established the accused represented she could secure large business loans and induced the complainants to pay RM33,000 in processing fees though no loan applications were ever made; the accused's explanation that fees were for a bank officer was unproven and inconsistent, police reports were not probative as evidence in trial, defence did not raise reasonable doubt, and therefore convictions under section 420 and the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were safe to be affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the conviction on both counts under section 420 Penal Code is affirmed
  • Sentence on each count affirmed: imprisonment 5 years and a fine of RM7,000.00; in default of payment of fine, 5 months imprisonment