Muhammad bin Jaafar

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TA’ZIM RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: JA-41(Ors)-2-11/2020 ANTARA MUHAMMAD BIN JAAFAR DAN PENDAKWA RAYA DI HADAPAN YA DR SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN, MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU DALAM MAHKAMAH TERBUKA ALASAN KEPUTUSAN [1] Ini merupakan rayuan pihak perayu terhadap keputusan Puan Majistret yang bijaksana pada 19 Oktober 2020 yang menolak permohonan perayu untuk kenderaan bot fiber panjang lebih kurang 28 x 7 kaki lebar, enjin sangkut jenis Suzuki 90 HP, tong minyak petrol berwarna merah dan MTJB JA-41(Ors)-2-114/2020 serawan jala ikan dikembalikan sementara kepada perayu di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. RINGKASAN FAKTA KES [2] Pemohon telah memfailkan Notis Permohonan di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah beserta Afidavit Sokongan pada 6 Julai 2020 untuk satu perintah agar barang-barang berikut iaitu: i. bot fiber panjang berukuran lebih kurang 28 x 7 kaki lebar; ii. enjin sangkut jenis Suzuki 9OHP; iii. | tong minyak petrol berwarna merah; dan iv. | serawan jala ikan dipulangkan kepada pemohon sementara menunggu kes perbicaraan melibatkan adik pemohon iaitu Muhammad Fairul bin Jaafar bersabit perbicaraan jenayah No. Kes JA-45SOM-18-07/2020 selesai. [3] Pada 4 Mac 2020, adik pemohon (‘Tertuduh”) telah menggunakan bot fiber pada hari beliau ditangkap oleh pasukan polis marin. Semasa tangkapan, bot tersebut beserta enjin sangkut, tong minyak petrol dan serawan jala ikan turut dirampas oleh pihak polis marin [4] Tertuduh telah pun dituduh di bawah seksyen 26J Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Penyeludupan Migran 2007 (“ATIPSOM”) di Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Tinggi Johor dan kes ini adalah dalam proses perbicaraan di Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru. MTJB JA-414(Ors)-2-1 1/2020 [5] Oleh itu, sementara menunggu perbicaraan kes Tertuduh, pemohon telah membuat permohonan di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah di Mahkamah Majistret Kota Tinggi bagi pemulangan barang- barang yang telah dirampas melalui Notis Permohonan dan Afidavit Sokongan. KEPUTUSAN MAJISTRET [6] Puan Majistret berpendapat bahawa remedi yang dipohon oleh perayu di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah bukanlah satu remedi yang sesuai dan telah menolak permohonan perayu. UNDANG-UNDANG BERHUBUNG RAYUAN [7] Berhubung rayuan, seksyen 316 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah memperuntukkan: “Section 316. Decision on appeal. At the hearing of the appeal the Judge may, if he considers there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may — (a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse the order, and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law; (b) in an appeal from a conviction or in an appeal as to sentence — (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried; or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding reduce or enhance the sentence or alter the nature of the sentence; MTJB JA-41(Ors)-2-11/2020 (c) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order.” [8] Dalam kes Mohd Yusri bin Mangsor & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2014] AMEJ 0611; [2014] 4 MLJ 875, Mohd Zawawi Salleh HMR telah menyatakan seperti berikut: ‘[4] We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned deputy public prosecutor (DPP) at some length. We have also scrutinized the records available before us. We are mindful that this is a factual based appeal. It is trite that an appellate court will be slow to interfere with the findings of facts and judicial appreciation of the facts by the trial court to which the law entrusts the primary task of evaluation of the evidence. However, there are exceptions. Where: (a) the judgment is based upon a wrong premise of fact or of law; (b) there was insufficient judicial appreciation by the trial judge of the evidence of circumstances placed before him; (c) the trial judge has completely overlooked the inherent probabilities of the case; (d) that the course of events affirmed by the trial judge could not have occurred; (e) the trial judge had made an unwarranted deduction based on faulty judicial reasoning from admitted or established facts; or (f) the trial judge had so fundamentally misdirected himself that one may safely sat that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion, then an appellate court will intervene to rectify that error so that injustice is not occasioned, then an appellate court will intervene to rectify that error so that injustice is not occasioned (see Perembun (M) Sdn Bhd v Conlay Construction Sdn Bhd [2012] 4 MLJ 149 (CA); Sivalingam a/l Periasamy v Periasamy & Anor [1996] 3 AMR 3506; [1995] 3 MLJ 395; [1996] 4 CLU 545 (CA)).” [9] Secara amnya, mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan tidak akan ‘interfere’ dengan dapatan mahkamah rendah melainkan terdapat kekhilafan MTJB JA-44(Ors)-2-11/2020 pada dapatan mahkamah rendah. Berdasarkan prinsip ini, mahkamah akan menganalisa dan menimbang rayuan ini. HUJAHAN PERAYU [10] Pihak perayu berhujah bahawa Puan Majistret yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf apabila membuat dapatan seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah hanya memperuntukkan yang mahkamah hanya menentukan tentang prinsip milikan (“possession”) untuk kenderaan bot fiber panjang lebih kurang 28 x 7 kaki lebar, enjin sangkut jenis Suzuki 90 HP, tong minyak petrol berwarna merah dan serawan jala ikan dan bukanlah kepunyaan (“ownership”) barang rampasan tersebut. [11] Pihak perayu selanjutnya berhujah bahawa Puan Majistret yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf pada fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat dapatan bahawa: (i) | perayu bukanlah pemilik barang rampasan; (ii) | perayu ingin menuntut barang rampasan tersebut semula; (iii) | barang rampasan tidak akan rosak kerana di simpan di tempat yang selamat dan sesuai oleh pihak polis tanpa sebarang keterangan yang menyokong pernyataan tersebut di dalam Afidavit Responden; dan (iv) apabila mengabaikan fakta bahawa responden tidak pernah menyentuh pada enjin sangkut Suzuki 90 HP, tong minyak petrol berwarna merah dan serawan jala ikan di dalam Afidavit Responden tetapi hanya spesifik kepada bot fiber semata-mata. MTJB JA-41(Ors)-2-11/2020 HUJAHAN RESPONDEN [12] Secara ringkasnya, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya terpelajar, Puan Suriani Ujang bagi pihak responden berhujah: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Permohonan perayu adalah bersifat “premature” memandangkan kes masih belum selesai dibicarakan di Mahkamah Tinggi. Barang kes ini juga adalah tertakluk kepada perintah perlucuthakkan di bawah seksyen 36 Akta ATIPSOM 2007 memandangkan ia merupakan barang kes yang digunakan semasa kesalahan tersebut dilakukan. Puan Majistret yang bijaksana juga adalah tepat apabiia memutuskan remedi yang dipohon di bawah seksyen 413 KTJ bukanlah satu remedi yang sesuai untuk tuntutan barang-barang kes tesebut memandangkan terdapat satu peruntukan yang khas iaitu di bawah seksyen 36 Akta ATIPSOM itu sendiri. Pertuduhan ke atas tertuduh adalah di bawah seksyen 26J Akta ATIPSOM iaitu kesalahan mengangkut migran. Oleh yang demikian, barang-barang kes ini adalah antara perkara utama yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan semasa perbicaraan kelak. Sekalipun perayu membuat akujanji akan mengemukakan barang-barang kelak semasa perbicaraan, namun_ pihak responden kKhuatir keadaan dan rupa bentuk barang-barang kes ini tidak akan sama seperti semasa rampasan dibuat oleh pihak MTJB JA-414 (Ors)-2-11/2020 polis. Ini akan menyukarkan pengecaman oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan kelak. ANALISA DAN DAPATAN [13] Dalam rayuan ini, perayu telah memohon satu perintah agar kenderaan bot fiber panjang lebih kurang 28 x 7 kaki lebar, enjin sangkut jenis Suzuki 90 HP, tong minyak petrol berwarna merah dan serawan jala ikan dikembalikan sementara kepada perayu di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [14] Merujuk kepada seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ianya memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “Section 413. Procedure by police on seizure of property. (1) The seizure or finding by any police officer of property taken under section 20 or alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence shall be immediately reported to a Magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit respecting the delivery of the property to the person entitled to the possession of it, or, if that person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of the property. (2) If the person so entitled is known the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions, if any, as the Magistrate thinks fit, and shall in that case cause a notice to be served on that person informing him of the terms of the order and requiring him to take delivery of the property within such period from the date of the service of the notice (not being less than forty-eight hours) as the Magistrate may in the notice prescribe. (3) If that person is unknown the Magistrate may direct that the property be detained in police custody, and the Chief Police Officer shall, in that case, issue a public notification specifying the articles of which the property consists and 7 MTJB JA-41(Ors)-2-11/2020 requiring any person who has any claim to it to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of the public notification: Provided that, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that the property is of no appreciable value, or that its value is so small as, in the opinion of the Magistrate, to render impracticable the sale, as hereinafter provided, of the property, or as to make its detention in police custody unreasonable in view of the expense or inconvenience that would thereby be involved, the Magistrate may order the property to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of, either on the expiration of such period after the publication of the notification above referred to as he may determine or immediately as he thinks fit. (4) Every notification under subsection (3) shall, if the value of the property amounts to fifty ringgit, be published in the Gazette. (5) Notwithstanding the preceding subsections, where the property is required for the investigation of a case and it is necessary for the property to be detained, the property shall be kept in a safe and proper place by the Officer in charge of a Police District where the offence was committed.” [15] Berhubung pemakaian seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, mahkamah ini merujuk kepada Kes Hong Leong Bank v PP [2016] 5 MLJ 450, mahkamah telah menyatakan faktor-faktor yang perlu diteliti oleh seseorang Majistret bagi permohonan pemulangan harta di bawah seksyen 413 seperti berikut: “In determining for an application for the return of property under s 413 of the CPC, what the magistrate has to consider are: (a) who is entitled to possession of the property at the time when it had been seized by the police; and MTJB JA-41(Ors)-2-11/2020 (b) where it appears that the police had seized the property from a person who has not been shown to have committed any offence with regards to the property, then the magistrate may make an order for the car to be returned to the person last in possession. The magistrate should not delve into the issue of title or ownership, which would be determined in the civil court.” [16] Seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah memperuntukkan bahawa pemilik (owner) boleh memohon pihak polis untuk merujuk perkara ini kepada Majistret untuk membolehkan Majistret membuat perintah sewajarnya. Namun, seorang pemilik tidak boleh memohon kepada Majistret untuk mendapatkan pemilikan. Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Manoharan af Dorasamy v Ketua Polis lbu Pejabat Kontinjen Polis Seremban, Negeri Sembilan & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 85 telah menyatakan: “In the present appeal it is clear to us s 413 of the CPC is not an alternative remedy available to the appellant. It is a provision empowering the police to continue detaining a vehicle after the 48th hour if no person has been charged in respect of that vehicle. That section does not give any right to any individual including the undisputed owner to move the magistrate to grant him the possession of the said vehicle. At the most he could only request the police to set s 413 of the CPC in motion to refer the said vehicle to a magistrate for the necessary to be made.” [Penekanan ditambah] [17] Tambahan pula, menurut kes N Indra a/p Nallathamby v Public Prosecutor [2010] 1 MLJ 867, peruntukan seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah hanya terpakai bagi barangan yang disita menurut seksyen 20 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah atau barangan “suspected to have been stolen or MTJB JA-41(Ors)-2-11/2020 found under suspicious circumstances ie where goods are seized by the police from a person arrested and such property is reported to the magistrate for an order for delivery of the property to the person whom the magistrate thinks fit to take delivery of the same.” [18] Berbalik semula kepada rayuan di hadapan mahkamah ini, perayu telah membuat permohonan di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Barang-barang yang dipohon oleh perayu untuk dikembalikan sementara adalah bagi maksud satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 26J ATIPSOM. ATIPSOM merupakan satu akta atau undang-undang khusus berhubung pemerdagangan orang dan penyeludupan migran. [19] Pihak responden telah berhujah bahawa barang kes adalah tertakluk kepada perintah perlucuthakkan di bawah seksyen 36 ATIPSOM. Seksyen 36 ATIPSOM memperuntukkan: “Section 36. Forfeiture of conveyance, moveable property, etc. (1} All conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document, or any human organ seized in the exercise of any power conferred under this Act are liable to forfeiture. (2) The Court trying any person accused of an offence under this Act may at the conclusion of the trial, whether he is convicted or not, order that the conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document or any human organ seized from that person be forfeited. (3) Where there is no prosecution with regard to any offence under this Act— (a) in the case of human organ seized, it shall be deemed to be forfeited; and 10 MTJB JA-44 (Ors)-2-11/2020 (b) in the case of the conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document seized, the enforcement officer shall serve a notice in writing to the last known address of the person from whom the conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document was seized. (4) The notice in paragraph (3)(b) shall specify that there is no prosecution in respect of such conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document and that such conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document will be forfeited at the expiration of one calendar month from the date of service of the notice unless a claim is made by the person from whom the conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document was seized. (5) Upon receipt of the notice issued under paragraph (3)(b), any person asserting that he is the owner of any conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document seized under this Act which is not liable to forfeiture may, personally or by his agent authorized in writing by him, give written notice to the enforcement officer in whose possession the conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document is held. (6) Upon receipt of a notice under subsection (5), the enforcement officer who made the seizure shall refer the matter to the Court for its determination. (7) The Court to which the matter is referred shall issue a summons requiring the person asserting that he is the owner of the conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document and the person from whom it was seized to appear before the Court, and upon their appearance or default to appear, due service of the summons being proved, the Court shall proceed to the examination of the matter, and on proof that such conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document was the subject matter of or was used in the commission of an offence under this Act, shall order the conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document to be forfeited or may, in the absence of such proof, 11 MTJB JA-41(Ors)-2-1 1/2020 order the release of such conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document to the person entitled to it. (8) Any conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document or any human organ forfeited or deemed to be forfeited shall be disposed of in any manner as the enforcement officer deems fit.” [20] ATIPSOM merupakan satu akta khusus. Persoalan yang timbul adalah sama ada peruntukan seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah boleh digunapakai bagi barangan yang telah disita di bawah ATIPSOM. Untuk tujuan ini, mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Malayan Banking Berhad v Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 LNS 1844 yang mana Hakim Collin Sequerah telah menyatakan: “Section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Code cited by the Applicant which empowers a Magistrate to cause a notice to be served in cases where property seized may have been used in the commission of an offence is a general provision and in accordance with the maxim “generalia specialibus non derogant” cannot override a specific statute or provision, namely, the said Act.” {[Penekanan ditambah] [21] Dalam rayuan ini, barangan telah disita di bawah ATIPSOM, manakala permohonan yang dibuat oleh perayu adalah di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. ATIPSOM merupakan satu undang-undang khusus sedangkan Kanun Tatacara Jenayah merupakan satu undang-undang am. [22] Berhubung maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’, NS Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes 10" Edition di muka surat 650 menyatakan: 12 MTJB JA-41 (Ors)-2-11/2020 “where there is a conflict between a special Act and a general Act, the provisions of th special Act prevail.” [23] Tambahan pula, berlandaskan kepada kes Malayan Banking Berhad v Public Prosecutor (supra), maka satu statut yang am tidak boleh mengatasi statut yang khusus. [24] Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa permohonan di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah adalah tidak wajar (not appropriate) diguna pakai bagi kesalahan di bawah ATIPSOM. [25] Seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah memperuntukkan bahawa pihak polis yang dikehendaki merujuk perkara ini kepada Majistret bagi membolehkan Majistret membuat perintah sewajarnya. Kes Manoharan a// Dorasamy v Ketua Polis Ibu Pejabat Kontinjen Polis Seremban, Negeri Sembilan & Anor (supra) adalah dirujuk. Dalam rayuan ini, mahkamah mendapati permohonan telah dibuat oleh perayu di bawah seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Ini tidak mematuhi keperiuan peruntukan seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang mengkehendaki pihak polis merujuk perkara ini kepada Majistret. [26] Selain itu, peruntukan seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah adalah bagi barangan yang disita menurut seksyen 20 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [Kes N. Indra a/p Naliathamby v Public Prosecutor (supra)]. Namun, bagi rayuan ini, barangan telah disita menurut peruntukan ATIPSOM. [27] Seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah merupakan satu undang- undang am, manakala ATIPSOM merupakan satu undang-undang khusus. Mengaplikasikan maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’, satu Akta yang am tidak boleh mengatasi satu Akta yang khusus. Dalam erti kata lain, 13 MTJB JA-41(Ors)-2-11/2020 peruntukan seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tidak boleh mengatasi peruntukan ATIPSOM. Rujukan dibuat kepada kes Malayan Banking Berhad v Public Prosecutor (supra). [28] Sehubungan itu, berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang telah dinyatakan mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa pihak perayu telah terkhilaf apabila mengguna pakai seksyen 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah bagi memohon mendapatkan kenderaan bot fiber panjang lebih kurang 28 x 7 kaki lebar, enjin sangkut jenis Suzuki 90 HP, tong minyak petrol berwarna merah dan serawan jala ikan. KEPUTUSAN [29] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan, mahkamah_ ini mendapati bahawa Puan Majistret yang bijaksana tidak terkhilaf dalam menolak permohonan perayu. [30] Mahkamah dengan ini menolak rayuan perayu. Keputusan Puan Majistret yang bijaksana adalah dikekalkan. Bertarikh : 22 April 2021 (syatinal bls jLAIMAN) Ya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Johor Bahru 14 MTJB JA-414(Ors)-2-11/2020 Kaunsel: Untuk perayu: Encik Atuffah bin Said The Law Chambers of Fazaly Ali 36C-1, Jalan Kolam Ayer Taman Kolam Ayer 80100, Johor Bahru, Johor. Untuk respondent: Puan Suriani binti Ujang Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor, Aras 2, Bangunan Dato’ Ja’afar Muhammad, Kota Iskandar, Nusajaya, Johor. 15 MTJB JA-44(Ors)-2-11/2020