MOHD ZULKIFFLI BIN ABD HALIM

MOHD ZULKIFFLI BIN ABD HALIM

Appeal dismissed because s.166 CPC validly permitted alternative charges and no duplicity or prejudice was proven; trial judge properly assessed and accepted corroborative evidence (bank records and testimony) establishing four transfers into appellant's account and thereby proved elements of offences; once receipt established, s.50 presumption applied obliging appellant to rebut; credibility findings and sentence were within discretion and not interfered with.

Citation
KA-42R(A)-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Zulkiffli bin Abd Halim; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 August 2025
Case Number
KA-42R(A)-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (conviction and Sentence) / High Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Alternative Charges Under S.166 CPC, Presumption Under S.50 MACC Act, Credibility of Witnesses, Sentence Appeal
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Criminal Procedure Double Jeopardy Alternative Charges Under S.166 CPC Presumption Under S.50 MACC Act Credibility of Witnesses Sentence Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Zulkiffli bin Abd Halim

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (conviction and Sentence) / High Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alternative charges offered created duplicity/double jeopardy
  2. 2 Whether trial judge erred in relying on SP6 and SP9 after excluding them for original charges
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence that appellant received monies from SP6/SP9

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because s.166 CPC validly permitted alternative charges and no duplicity or prejudice was proven; trial judge properly assessed and accepted corroborative evidence (bank records and testimony) establishing four transfers into appellant's account and thereby proved elements of offences; once receipt established, s.50 presumption applied obliging appellant to rebut; credibility findings and sentence were within discretion and not interfered with.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and conviction and sentence of the Sessions Court (Puan HMS) affirmed
  • Sentences imposed by Sessions Court maintained: Pertuduhan Pilihan 1 – imprisonment 6 months and fine RM8000; Pertuduhan Pilihan 2 – imprisonment 9 months and fine RM8000; Pertuduhan Pilihan 3 – imprisonment 9 months and fine RM8000; Pertuduhan Pilihan 4 – imprisonment 9 months and fine RM8000