PENDAKWARAYA Puan Annur Atiqah binti Abdul Hadi (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Dato' Setia Salehuddin Saidin, Afifuddin Ahmad Hafifi dan Siti Sarah Khalil (Tetuan Salehuddin Saidin & Associates)

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Annur Atiqah binti Abdul Hadi (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Dato' Setia Salehuddin Saidin, Afifuddin Ahmad Hafifi dan Siti Sarah Khalil (Tetuan Salehuddin Saidin & Associates)

The appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence quashed because the charge was defective for failing to particularise material particulars (interest/amount payable) and the key computer printouts (P12 A-C) were inadmissible under s90A absent the required certificate or evidence from the licensing authority, so the prosecution failed to prove the essential element that the appellant was carrying on moneylending without a licence.

Citation
WA-42S-27-07/2019 & WA-42H-31-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Bir Singh a/l Teja Singh; Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 October 2020
Case Number
WA-42S-27-07/2019 & WA-42H-31-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed.
Legal Topics
Moneylending Without Licence, Defective Charge/particulars of Offence, Admissibility of Computer Generated Documents (s90 A), Particularisation Duty of Prosecution, Quashing of Conviction
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Licensing & Regulatory Law Commercial Law Moneylending Without Licence Defective Charge/particulars of Offence Admissibility of Computer Generated Documents (s90 A) Particularisation Duty of Prosecution +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bir Singh a/l Teja Singh

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge was defective for failing to particularise the interest/amount payable and other material particulars
  2. 2 Whether computer printouts (P12 A-C) were admissible under section 90A of the Evidence Act without a certificate or evidence from the licensing authority
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved the essential element that the appellant was carrying on the business of moneylending without a licence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence quashed because the charge was defective for failing to particularise material particulars (interest/amount payable) and the key computer printouts (P12 A-C) were inadmissible under s90A absent the required certificate or evidence from the licensing authority, so the prosecution failed to prove the essential element that the appellant was carrying on moneylending without a licence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction set aside