Back
2022 MarsdenLR 546
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
PEK WOEI YI & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: AA-41S-14-07/2019 & AA-41H-24-08/2019]
The prosecution must properly connect the accused to the alleged corporate offence; failure to do so results in a quashed conviction.
Headnote:(A) Food Act 1983 – Section 13B(1) and (4) – Food Regulations 1985 – Regulation 360A(7) – Accused charged with selling adulterated mineral water containing prohibited substances. Court found charge defective as it failed to attribute culpability concerning the accused's corporate position. Conviction quashed due to misapplication of law and failure to prove necessary elements of the charge. (Paras 12-14, 17)
(B) Appeal – Standards for Appeals – An appellate court may only overturn a conviction if it determines it to be unsafe. Issues arose over the sufficiency and clarity of charges laid by the prosecution. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case: On 11 April 2018, the owner of a convenience store was charged under the Food Act for selling mineral water that allegedly violated standards regarding acceptable levels of sulphate and chloride.
Findings of Court: The court concluded that the prosecution did not effectively connect the accused to the alleged offence, leading to a flawed charge.
Issues: Whether the charge against the accused was defective and if the prosecution met its burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court confirmed that the owner was not directly responsible for the corporate entity's compliance; thus, the charge was improperly framed.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The accused was charged with an offence under subsection 13B(1) read together with para 13B(2)(d) of the Food Act 1983 ('the Act') and punishable under subsection 13B(4) of the Act. At the end of the trial, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused to a fine of RM9,000.00 in default 12 months imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the decision, the accused appealed against the conviction and sentence (Appeal No: AA-41S-14-07/2019). The prosecution cross-appealed against the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate (Appeal No: AA-41H-24-08/2019). Both appeals were heard together.
[2] The charge framed against the accused is as follows:
"Bahawa kamu pada 11 April 2018, jam lebih kurang 10.55 pagi bertempat di 7-Eleven Malaysia Sdn Bhd 91, Jalan Aman Taman Aman 31950 Mambang Diawan, Perak di dalam Daerah Kampar dalam Negeri Perak telah menjual 3 botol Air Mineral kepada Pegawai Berkuasa Akta Makanan 1983 Pejabat Kesihatan Daerah Kampar, Perak melalui Nor Fatin Izzati Binti Shohaimi. Setelah dianalisa didapati Air Mineral tersebut mengandungi Sulphate sebanyak 33 mg/L dan Chloride sebanyak 13.4 mg/L. Kehadiran Sulphate dan Chloride di dalam air mineral adalah tidak mematuhi standard sebagaimana yang ditetapkan dalam Jadual Kedua Puluh Enam di bawah peruntukan Subperaturan 360A(7) dibaca bersama Subperaturan 2(5), Peraturan-Peraturan Makanan 1985. Oleh yang demikian kamu selaku pemilik Pek Woei Yi telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 13B(1) dibaca bersama s 13B(2)(d), Akta Makanan 1983 iaitu menjual makanan yang mengandungi apa-apa bahan yang penambahannya tidak dibenarkan di bawah Akta ini atau mana-mana peraturan yang dibuat di bawah Akta ini. Jika disabitkan kesalahan kamu boleh dihukum di bawah s 13B(4) di bawah Akta yang sama."
Brief Facts Of The Case
[3] On 11 April 2018 at about 10.55am, Mohd Faizal bin Rasidi (SP1) an authorised officer under the Act, purchased three bottles of natural mineral water ('mineral water') at 7 Eleven Malaysia Sdn Bhd No 91, Jalan Aman Taman Aman 31950 Mambang Diawan, Kampar, Perak from one Nor Fatin Izzati as samples for the purpose of analysis.
[4] SP1 then complied with the procedure of taking samples for analysis as provided under reg 4 of the Food Regulations 1985 ('FR') and labeled the samples according to reg 6 of the FR. On the same day, SP1 requested the analysis of the mineral water and handed a bottle of the mineral water to Rose Heldawati binti Che Rose (SP2).
[5] SP2, an analyst appointed under subsection 3(1) of the Act, conducted the analysis and confirmed that the sample provided contained 33 mg/L of sulphate and 13.4 mg/L of chloride (exhibit P15). Dr Husna Maizura binti Ahmad Mahir (SP3) testified that sulphate and chloride are not permissible in Malaysia at all. SP4, Muhammad Hanis bin Sharuddin is the investigating officer in this case.
The Law Relating To An Appeal
[6] It is trite that an appellate court should be slow in interfering with the findings of facts made by the trial court. However, the appellate court may disturb a finding of fact where the judgment is based upon a wrong premise of fact or law [see: Mohd Yusri Mangsor & Anor v. Pendakwa Raya; , [2014] 7 CLJ 897; and Lim Kheak Teong v. PP ; [1984] 2 CLJ 219].
[7] In Mohd Johi Said & Anor v. PP, [2005] 5 MLJ 409, the court of Appeal held that:
"Unlike civil appeals, where the appellant carries the burden of showing that the judge at first instance went wrong, in a criminal case the duty of the court is to consider whether the conviction is right. The correct approach is therefore not whether the decision is wrong but whether the conviction is safe. See, Mohammad Husain v. Emperor AIR [1945] Nag 441; Zahari Yeop Baai v. PP, [1980] 1 MLJ 160."
Issues And Findings Of The court
Institution Of Proceedings
[8] At the outset, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution had failed to initiate the proceedings within the time limit provid
