Suhana Binti Samad [ ]

Suhana Binti Samad [ ]

The High Court held the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable and supported by contemporaneous MyIMMS logs, documentary evidence (official and forged receipts), witness testimony and sampling showing a pattern of improper 'gratis' approvals; these established entrustment (including indirect entrustment) and dishonest misappropriation and common intention under s.34, and absence of CCTV or signature expert did not render the prosecution case unsafe; accordingly convictions and sentences under s.409 (read with s.34) were affirmed.

Citation
BA-42(R)(A)-3-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Suhana binti Samad; Appellant: Zalita binti Haron; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya (Responden)
Court
R
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 November 2023
Case Number
BA-42(R)(A)-3-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (appeal Against Conviction and Sentence) / High Court (appellate Review of Sessions Court Conviction)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409 Penal Code), Entrustment (direct and Indirect), Common Intention / Section 34 Penal Code, Credibility of Accomplice Witnesses, Sufficiency of Particulars in Charge
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Administrative/employment (public Servant Obligations) Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409 Penal Code) Entrustment (direct and Indirect) Common Intention / Section 34 Penal Code Credibility of Accomplice Witnesses Sufficiency of Particulars in Charge

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suhana binti Samad

Appellant

Zalita binti Haron

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya (Responden)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (appeal Against Conviction and Sentence) / High Court (appellate Review of Sessions Court Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved all elements of offence under Section 409 Penal Code including entrustment and dishonest misappropriation
  2. 2 Whether the testimony of interested witnesses (SP25 and SP26) was so tainted that conviction could not safely rest on it
  3. 3 Whether documentary and electronic evidence (MyIMMS logs and receipts) sufficiently established appellants' participation and signature/authorship despite absence of CCTV and expert signature comparison

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable and supported by contemporaneous MyIMMS logs, documentary evidence (official and forged receipts), witness testimony and sampling showing a pattern of improper 'gratis' approvals; these established entrustment (including indirect entrustment) and dishonest misappropriation and common intention under s.34, and absence of CCTV or signature expert did not render the prosecution case unsafe; accordingly convictions and sentences under s.409 (read with s.34) were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions under Section 409 read with Section 34 Penal Code affirmed