Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 29(1) minor offences act 1955

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2025

IZZAZUL BIN MOKETAR

Citation

MA-83-428-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-83-428-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Accused pleaded guilty unconditionally, was validly convicted under s.29(1) Minor Offences Act 1955 pursuant to s.173(b) CPC; under s.305 CPC appeal is confined to extent or legality of sentence; after considering mitigation (early plea, first offender, family) and aggravating/public interest factors, the court found the fines RM500, RM800 and RM600 (each with one month imprisonment in default) were within lawful range and appropriate and therefore upheld the sentences.
31 Mar 2024

SUGANTHI A/P SANDER KUMAR

Citation

JI-83-135-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JI-83-135-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The charge was defective because the monies in a bank account constitute a chose in action/incorporeal and are not 'property' or a 'thing' within section 29(1) Akta Kesalahan Kecil 1955; therefore the elements of the offence were not made out and the accused is to be discharged not amounting to acquittal.
31 Mar 2024

ROKIAH BINTI ABDUL KADIR

Citation

JI-83-132-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JI-83-132-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The charge under s.29(1) was legally defective because the funds alleged to be in the accused's bank account constitute a chose in action (incorporeal right) and do not amount to 'property' or a 'thing' for the purposes of s.29(1); therefore the elements of the offence were not made out and the accused was discharged not amounting to acquittal.
21 Dec 2020

HARPAJAN KAUR A/P DELIB SINGH

Citation

PA-41S-16-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-41S-16-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 29(1) of the Minor Offences Act contemplates tangible movable property capable of possession; monies held in a bank account are an incorporeal chose in action (bank's debt) and not capable of "possession" under s29(1); therefore charges based on monies in bank account did not disclose an offence and were fundamentally defective and incurable, rendering the trial and conviction a nullity.
11 Nov 2019

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA HARPAJAN KAUR A/P DELIB SINGH

Citation

PA-83-949-09/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-83-949-09/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found prosecution proved the elements of s29(1) beyond reasonable doubt because the accused was the registered account holder, personally made counter withdrawals consistent with knowledge of funds, had opportunities and means to inquire or report suspicious deposits given her knowledge of her husband's bankruptcy, and her testimony was inconsistent and uncredible; late but admissible s90A evidence and absence of Patmendar did not create a fatal gap.

Malaysia Case Law

IZZAZUL BIN MOKETAR

SUGANTHI A/P SANDER KUMAR

ROKIAH BINTI ABDUL KADIR

HARPAJAN KAUR A/P DELIB SINGH

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA HARPAJAN KAUR A/P DELIB SINGH