Ahmadi Asnawi JC:-

[1] Both the plaintiffs claimed to have been wrongly arrested and detained by the first and second defendants at Balai Polis Segamat at about 10pm on 30 June 2005 pursuant to Buloh Kasap Polis Report No. 640/05 lodged by one Tan Yie Sin (hereinafter referred to as the "640/05 report"). The said Tan Yie Sin had alleged that earlier in the day he was chased by both the plaintiffs armed with parangs while he was tapping rubber on his plot of rubber land known as Lot no. 644 and Lot no. 743, Kampung Kuala Paya, Buloh Kasap Segamat. For the said wrongful arrests and detention, both the plaintiffs inter alia, claimed the following against all the four defendants:-

(i) RM500 in special damages;

(ii) General damages to be assessed; and

(iii) Punitive and exemplary damages.

[2] At the stage of submissions, the plaintiffs dropped their claim under para 27(d) of their prayers for an order of mandamus against the third defendant. The plaintiffs also abandoned their claim for malicious prosecution. They are now confining their claim for wrongful arrests and detention only.

[3] The first plaintiff (PW1) testified that on 30 June 2005 he went to Balai Polis Buloh Kasap with his son, the second plaintiff (PW2) at about 6.30pm in response to the Balai's requests for them to come over. At the Balai, he was not allowed to speak and was asked to wait till 9pm. Neither was the second plaintiff allowed to speak. At about 9pm, several policemen from Balai Polis Segamat arrived and took him and the second plaintiff to Balai Polis Segamat. They gave no reasons why both of them were taken to Balai Polis Segamat. At about 11pm both of them were arrested and detained at the lock-up of Balai Polis Segamat. They were released only the next day in the evening. The first plaintiff could not now remember the time of his release.

[4] In evidence the first plaintiff now claimed that he and the second plaintiff were arrested by implication of law at 6.30pm when they were at Balai Polis Buloh Kasap till 9pm before being taken to Balai Polis Segamat. This evidence is obviously a departure of the pleaded case as indicated in para 9 of their statement of claim. Paragraph 9 only talks about the wrongful arrests and detention effected at Balai Polis Segamat. The remaining paragraphs in their statement of claim also adverted to the same.

[5] The first plaintiff denied ever chasing the complainant (of 640/05 report) with a parang. However, under cross-examination, he admitted chasing the complainant out of his rubber land on grounds that the complainant was infact trespassing on his lands known as Lot no. 644 and Lot no. 743, the same pieces of land mentioned and claimed by the complainant to be his in his 640/05 report.

[6] The first plaintiff further claimed that the 640/05 report was a false report and that the police investigation was flawed on account that it was based upon a false report.

[7] He denied that his brother's undivided share over the said lands was purchased by one Chew Teek and the said Chew Teek subsequently sold the said undivided share to the complainant (Tan Yie Sin). Though the first plaintiff was shown his own police reports at pp. 75 to 77 of Lampiran 52 (the plaintiffs bundle of documents) he denied any knowledge that Chew Teek had purchased his brother's undivided share on the said lands. He claimed that the said lands were registered wholly under his own name. The complainant's name was not registered as co-owners in the land titles of the said land. Neither was Chew Teek's.

[8] The first plaintiff further claimed that the investigation was conducted in difference of the law in that:-

(i) The police failed to take into account his old age, his poor hearing and his limited understanding of Bahasa Malaysia;

(ii) The police did not explain the reasons for his arrest and no interpretation was provided to explain the reasons for his arrest;

(iii) He was questioned by five to six policemen, making him to suffer headache