A bank account holder cannot be deemed to be in possession of money held in that account under Section 29(1) of the Minor Offences Act 1955.

Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JC:

Matter Before This Court

[1] This an appeal ('Appeal') by the Appellant against both conviction and sentence. The Appellant was charged for three offences under s 29(1) of the Minor Offences Act 1955 ('Act'). The Appellant was found guilty at the conclusion of the trial and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment under each charge which were to run concurrently.

[2] All the charges ('Charge/Charges') are as follows:

Pertuduhan Pertama

Bahawa kamu dari 27 Januari 2015 hingga 9 Mei 2015 bertempat di alamat 5G Lorong Delima 3, Island Glades, 11700 Gelugor, dalam Daerah Timur Laut, dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah berada dalam milikan kamu sejumlah wang berjumlah RM22,528.00 di dalam akaun Bank Public Bank nombor 4606286306 milik kamu yang mana kamu tidak dapat memberi keterangan yang memuaskan tentang bagaimana kamu memperolehinya dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 29(1) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Kecil 1955.

Pertuduhan Kedua

Bahawa kamu dari 20 Mei 2015 hingga 25 Mei 2015 bertempat di alamat 5G Lorong Delima 3, Island Glades, 11700 Gelugor, dalam Daerah Timur Laut, dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah berada dalam milikan kamu sejumlah wang berjumlah RM16,180.00 di dalam akaun Bank Public Bank nombor 4606286306 milik kamu yang mana kamu tidak dapat memberi keterangan yang memuaskan tentang bagaimana kamu memperolehinya dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu Kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 29(1) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Kecil 1955.

Pertuduhan Ketiga

Bahawa kamu 25 Jun 2015 jam lebih kurang 17:30 hrs bertempat di alamat 5G Lorong Delima 3, Island Glades, 11700 Gelugor, dalam Daerah Timur Laut, dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah berada dalam milikan kamu sejumlah wang berjumlah RM6,780.00 di dalam akaun Bank Public Bank nombor 4606286306 milik kamu yang mana kamu tidak dapat memberi keterangan yang memuaskan tentang bagaimana kamu memperolehinya dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu Kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 29(1) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Kecil 1955.

Brief Facts Of The Trial

[3] Sometime in 2014, SP1 (the complainant) was acquainted with one Karnail Singh a/l lndar Singh ('Karnail') through his friend known as one Patmendar Singh a/l Balkar Singh ('Patmendar'). Karnail is the husband of the Appellant. Karnail had informed SP1 that he had befriended a military officer at the Ministry of Defence, Malaysia. Karnail claimed that through that relationship he could assist SP1 in securing a contract for the grass cutting and cleaning services at the National Service Training Programme Camp Kuala Kangsar and Lumut, Perak. SP1 was requested to deposit certain amount of monies towards securing the award of the said contract.

[4] Between the periods of 27 January 2015 and 25 June 2015, SP1 had deposited a total sum of RM45,488 through 6 payments into a Public Bank Account number 4606286306 ('Account'). The said Account belonged to the Appellant.

[5] By 26 November 2016 SP1 found himself without the award of the said contract and a police report was made. SP2 arrested the Appellant as the owner of the Account and SP3 conducted investigations. The Appellant was consequently charged. A total of 4 witnesses were called for the Prosecution.

[6] The Appellant's defence was essentially that the Account was opened for the benefit of Karnail who was a bankrupt. Karnail had possession of the ATM card and thus control over the funds. Since the Account was for the benefit of her husband, the Appellant claimed that she had no reason to be suspicious of the amounts of monies deposited notwithstanding that the amounts were large.

[7] At the end of the Prosecution case the Magistrate found that the Prosecution had established a prima facie case against the Appellant and at the conclusion of the trial, the Magistrate held that the Prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Appellant under each of the Charge and that the Appellant had failed to r