SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 MarsdenLR 1641

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SHARMA KUMARI OAM PARKASH – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 41-47 of 2000]



Petitioner Advocates:K Kumarendran,C Vijaya Kumar,V Sithambaram,M Athimulan,S Kulasegaran ,Respondent Advocate: Zauyah Be Loth Khan,Evawani Farisyta Mohammed

The false statements in affidavits, once proven, undermine the administration of justice, warranting significant penalties to prevent such conduct.

Headnote:This case involves an appeal against conviction under sections 199 and 193 of the Penal Code, where the appellant was found guilty of making false statements in affidavits. The court analyzed the affidavits' legality and the magistrate's compliance with the laws. The major legal issue was whether the affidavits presented were properly filed and, if so, whether the appellant's statements were materially false. The court ruled that the appellant's claim she was not Sharma Kumari Shukla was a clear falsehood as she had represented herself by that name in various documents. The sentence of three years imprisonment, ordered by the magistrate, was upheld in this ruling.

Table of Content
1. appellant's arguments regarding procedural compliance and evidential integrity. (Para 1 , 3 , 9 , 12)
2. conclusions regarding the materiality of false statements made under oath. (Para 37 , 63)
3. final sentencing considerations and court's affirmance of the lower court's decision. (Para 83)

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant, Sharma Kumari a/p Oam Parkash against her convictions by the magistrate's court on 25 May 2000 on two charges under s 199 read with the first limb of s 193 of the Penal Code (Act 574), to which she was sentenced to three years imprisonment on each charge, both sentences to run concurrently. The appeals against conviction and sentence were heard consecutively.

[2] The appellant set out 19 grounds in the petition of appeal in respect of conviction.

[3] Mr Kumarendran, for the appellant, told the court he would submit upon sentence while his colleagues Mr Sithambaram and Mr Athimulan would submit on conviction.

Conviction

[4] The charge against the appellant was as follows:

Pertuduhan Pertama

Bahawa kamu pada 30 Oktober 1998 di Mahkamah Sivil 2, Kuala Lumpur dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, di dalam sebuah akuan yang dibuat oleh kamu yang boleh diterima di sisi undang-undang oleh mahkamah tersebut sebagai keterangan iaitu satu afidavit yang didaftarkan di mahkamah tersebut, telah membuat pernyataan palsu dalam afidavit tersebut sepertimana yang digariskan dalam lampiran 'A1' yang dilampirkan bersama dan pernyataan palsu tersebut adalah berkenaan dengan satu perkara material kepada tujuan afidavit tersebut dan pernyataan palsu tersebut kamu tahu atau percaya adalah palsu atau tidak percaya sebagai benar. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 199 Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum di bawah cabang pertama kepada seksyen 193 Kanun yang sama.

[5] The words that are the subject of the charge are contained in para (2) of the affidavit of Sharma Kumari Oam Parkash sworn on 30 October 1998 (P8) before the Commissioner for Oaths, Mr Ngui Kee Heong:

Saya mengikrarkan afidavit di sini tanpa prasangka untuk menimbulkan bantahan-bantahan fakta bahawa saya bukan orang seperti yang digambarkan dalam tindakan di sini sebagai defendan.

[6] The affidavit was filed by Messrs Ng Yook Woon, Advocates and Solicitors in Civil Suit No S2-22-594-97 in Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil 2, Kuala Lumpur.A translation of the affidavit was included (P8T), and in respect of para (2) it shows:

I affirm the affidavit herein without prejudice to raise objections to the fact I am not the person described in the action herein as the defendant.

[7] The second charge is similar, in respect of another affidavit filed by the same firm of advocates and solicitors in the same civil suit. The affidavit was affirmed before the same Commissioner for Oaths on 2 December 1998 (P9). The charge is as follows

Pertuduhan Kedua

Bahawa kamu pada 3 Disember 1998 di Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil 2, Kuala Lumpur dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, di dalam sebuah akuan yang dibuat oleh kamu yang boleh diterima di sisi undang-undang oleh mahkamah tersebut sebagai keterangan iaitu satu afidavit yang didaftarkan di mahkamah tersebut, telah membuat pernyataan palsu dalam afidavit tersebut sepertimana yang digariskan dalam lampiran'AZ' yang dilampirkan bersama dan pernyataan palsu tersebut adalah berkenaan dengan satu perkara material kepada tujuan afidavit tersebut dan pernyataan palsu tersebut kamu tahu atau percaya adalah palsu atau tidak percaya sebagai benar. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 199 Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum di bawah cabang pertama kepada seksyen 193 kanun yang sama.

[8] Paragraph 2 of the affidavit P9 is in identical language as for the affidavit of P8, and was accompanied by a translation (P8T and P9T) in the same words. It is not necessary therefore to reproduce those paragraphs here.

[9] The appeal on conviction dwelt upon issues that the affidavits were not receivable in the civil suit, that s 261 of the Criminal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top