YUSMI BIN ARSHAD [NO. K/P: 721128-09-5185]

YUSMI BIN ARSHAD [NO. K/P: 721128-09-5185]

The High Court held the indictment was not fatally defective, the prosecution proved all four elements of s165 prima facie and ultimately beyond reasonable doubt after consideration of defence evidence, and therefore the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Citation
RA-42(R)(A)-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Yusmi bin Arshad; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
R
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 April 2021
Case Number
RA-42(R)(A)-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Section 165 Penal Code (public Servant Obtaining Valuable Thing), Prima Facie Test, Charge Formalities and Defects, Adverse Inference (s114(g) Evidence Act), Sentence Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Evidence Appellate Procedure Criminal Procedure Section 165 Penal Code (public Servant Obtaining Valuable Thing) Prima Facie Test Charge Formalities and Defects +2 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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yusmi bin Arshad

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment under s165 Penal Code was defective and fatal
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case at the close of prosecution (elements of s165)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt at the conclusion of trial

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the indictment was not fatally defective, the prosecution proved all four elements of s165 prima facie and ultimately beyond reasonable doubt after consideration of defence evidence, and therefore the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under section 165 Penal Code upheld