Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Facts Of The Case

The appellant, a jewellery businessman, averred in his statement of claim that on 15 February 1993 at 5.30pm a police party headed by the second respondent, one Inspector Ramli bin Mokhtar, conducted a search in the appellant's factory purportedly suspecting that the appellant had kept a stolen gold locket there. The appellant had shown to the second respondent a receipt of sale dated 9 February 1993 from Golden Jewelleries marked as exh. (P1) but the second respondent was not satisfied, perhaps because it was written in the Chinese characters and he was unable to understand it, and so he took no chances and he brought the appellant to the central police station in Johor Bahru for further investigations. The appellant was eventually taken to Tampoi police station and detained there for the night. The next day, on 16 February 1993, the appellant was once again taken to his factory under police escort for the purpose of opening the steel safe that was purportedly used to keep the stolen gold locket and this time round the appellant had his hands handcuffed. The appellant's workers were there and they saw this incident and for that reason the appellant was said to be embarrassed. The steel safe was duly opened and the gold locket was not found therein. The appellant was then released on a bail bond in the sum of RM5,000. The appellant alleged that between 15 February 1993 to 16 February 1993, the respondents had committed criminal trespass, false imprisonment and had defamed the appellant. All these were said to have caused material loss and mental anguish to the appellant.

The second respondent in his statement of defence denied that he had no legal authority to enter the appellant's factory and he emphasised that the actions which he took were governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) ("CPC") after receiving credible information or having reasonable cause for suspecting that the appellant had concealed stolen property or in possession of stolen property which was related to Skudai report 1985/ 93 as reflected in exh. (D3). The second respondent too put up the defence that the appellant was handcuffed for security reasons and following the procedures as set out by the law thereto. The respondents too averred that they had discharged their duties according to the powers vested in them under the law and that they had no intention whatsoever to embarrass nor ridicule the appellant.

All these were the brief facts that can be gleaned from the pleadings. The appellant took the stand before the learned Sessions Court Judge in the person of Madam Siti Mariah bt Hj Ahmad and this was what he testified. He said that the police party headed by the second respondent visited his factory on that fateful day - 15 February 1993 at 5.30pm and the second respondent told him that the police wanted to search his factory because the police suspected that he kept stolen property. During that visit, the police party was accompanied by Khoo Siew See (DW3) (Khoo") - a businessman who transacted and dealt in gold items and it was Khoo who had sold the gold locket to the appellant. The appellant testified under oath that he had shown a cash sale issued by Khoo and marked as exh. (P1) to the second respondent but the latter directed him to take out all the gold items from the steel safe. The appellant then told the second respondent that he would open the steel safe on the next day at 9am and because of that the appellant was taken to the central police station for further investigations and for his statement to be recorded. After the appellant's statement had been recorded, he was then taken at about 7.30pm by the second respondent to the appellant's factory particularly at the main office for further investigations. There the police took down the particulars of the appellant's workers. According to the appellant, since the police did not find anything incriminating he was t