Back
2021 MarsdenLR 4077
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
MOHD ZAHARANI HARUN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: AA-42K(A)-1-09-2019]
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and testimonial evidence can establish a prima facie case against the accused.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code – Sections 420 and 471 – Conviction of the Appellant for cheating and using a forged document upheld – Evidence from various witnesses established that the Appellant had deceived the victim into handing over cash amounting to RM44,949.15 using a false receipt – The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 36, 38, 56 and 99)
(B) Onus of Proof – The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt raised by the defense must be substantiated by evidence. (Paras 50, 92)
Facts of the case: The Appellant was accused of cheating and forging a receipt for a planning application fee which led to the victim wrongly paying incurred fees based on a false document. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court: Sufficient evidence from victims and witnesses proved the Appellant's guilt; hence the decisions made by the lower court were supported by the evidence presented. (Paras 99)
Issues: Determining the validity of evidence presented against the Appellant, establishing if the necessary elements for charges under the Penal Code were met. (Paras 37-78)
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the testimonial evidence was sufficient to support a prima facie case against the Appellant, maintaining that the defense did not create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. (Paras 63, 79)
Result: The Appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.
Introduction
[1] The two charges levelled against the Appellant at the Ipoh Sessions Court (Criminal Court 1), who at the material time, was an Assistant Engineer Grade JA29 at Majlis Perbandaran Manjung, Perak ("MPM"), Unit Pusat Setempat (One Stop Centre or "OSC") in their original language read as follows:
First Charge
Bahawa kamu pada tarikh 11 Julai 2014 jam l/kurang 09:09 pagi di kawasan parking Majlis Daerah Manjung dalam Daerah Manjung Negeri Perak dengan curangnya telah menipu Too Ai Fong KPT:760331-08-5486 dengan memperdaya beliau untuk mempercayai bahawa kamu boleh lakukan pembayaran bagi pihak beliau untuk jelaskan fee permohonan pelan 5 Blok Pangsapuri No File MPM Pelan 02/002/0017/19/2014 berjumlah RM44,949.15. Oleh itu kamu dengan curangnya mendorong Too Ai Fong menyerahkan wang tunai sebanyak RM44,949.15 kepada kamu yang mana beliau tidak akan menyerahkan wang tersebut sekiranya tidak diperdayakan sedemikian oleh kamu. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum dibawah s 420 Kanun Keseksaan.
Second Charge
Bahawa kamu pada tarikh 11 Julai 2014 jam l/kurang 09:09 pagi di pejabat Pusat Setempat Majlis Daerah Manjung dalam Daerah Manjung Negeri Perak dengan curangnya telah menggunakan sebagai tulen satu dokumen iaitu resit bayaran permohonan pelan 5 Blok Pangsapuri No MPM Pelan 02/002/0017/19/2014 bernilai RM44,949.15 yang kamu ketahui pada masa kamu menggunakannya adalah satu dokumen palsu, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 471 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 467 Kanun Keseksaan.
[2] Both charges were tried together and at the end of the trial, he was found guilty and convicted of both the charges and punished. For the First Charge he was sentenced to five years imprisonment and one stroke of whipping. For the Second Charge he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Both sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. Dissatisfied, he appealed to this Court.
[3] After hearing parties on 21 January 2021 and 19 April 2021, the Court dismissed his appeal. Dissatisfied, he now appeals to the Court of Appeal and the following are the grounds for the decision of this Court. Bail was given to the Appellant pending his appeal to this Court and to the Court of Appeal with the punishment imposed stayed.
Case For The Prosecution
[4] Puan Nor Zakiah Binti Mukri (SP2) was an Assistant Accountant of MPM. As is normally done by year end, she reviews the cheques that were approved and issued by the Treasury Department in particular for repayments of income under Code 5 that is Code 51 or 55. She will obtain a copy of the vouchers and supporting documents. This is to verify the repayments. She will review the details printed on the receipts and the vouchers.
[5] On 31 December 2015, she was doubtful of the veracity of a receipt which was not in accord with the code in the system. The code on the receipt reads 72409B which is for planning approval when it should be for fees for something else. She got her assistants, Puan Suzana (SP4) and one Che Nur Juriah to verify the date of the relevant receipt and it was discovered that there was no such receipt issued for such a transaction on that date.
[6] From her investigation, the genuine receipt carrying a similar number was for the payment of assessment dated 2 January 2014.
[7] On 2 January 2016, she reported to her head of department who directed her to take it up with the head of the Jabatan Bangunan, Perancang, Pusat Setempat and the Unit Undang-Undang. She put up a report to the Yang DiPertua Majlis who minuted that a police report was to be lodged.
[8] A police report was duly lodged under Sitiawan Report No 0286/16 (P6) on 7 January 2016 (Appeal Record "AR" Vol 3 p 9). In this report, she said that the receipt No 40062612 (P2A-B AR p 5 and 6) dated 11 July 20214 for a transactional value of RM44,949.15 is suspected to be forged because based upon a review, this receipt No 40062612 is for a
