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

1954 MarsdenLR 278

HIGH COURT, PENANG
TEH KIM CHOOI – Appellant
Versus
REGINA – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No 55 Of 1954]



JUDGMENT

Spenser Wilkinson J:

The appellant was convicted in the Magistrate's Court upon a charge that in a declaration made before a justice of the Peace he made a false statement touching a point material to the object for which the declaration was made contrary to s. 199 of the Penal Code. The main grounds of appeal were that the declaration, the subject matter of the charge, was not in accordance with or in the form prescribed by the Declarations Ordinance, 1949; and that the essential parts of the declaration were not translated to the appellant and he was not asked to declare the same.

With regard to the first point it is quite clear that the important words:-

Declared at.......... this........ day of.......... before me.

Are absent from the declaration, and it is equally clear that when the appellant was before the Justice of the Peace although he signed the declaration he never declared it.

The result of this is in my opinion that this was not a declaration which any Court was bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact and was, therefore, not a declaration within the meaning of s. 199 of the Penal Code. In the case of Velumailum v. PP [1947] 1 MLRH 757, [1974] MLJ 153 Laville J held that the omission of the words "and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Enactment" was vital.The omission of the words "Declared at etc.," from the declaration in this case was in my opinion equally fatal.Moreover, I am satisfied that it is not sufficient for a declarant simply to sign the declaration; he should actually declare it before the justice of the Peace or Commissioner for Oaths before whom it is to be declared.

The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor conceded that in the circumstances of this case he could not resist the appellant's contention that no declaration was made.The result in my opinion is the same as that in Velumailum's case that although the statement was wilfully false it is not criminally punishable.

For these reasons I allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and the accused was acquitted and discharged.

Appeal allowed.

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top