Suraya Othman J:

[1] The respondent was charged in the Magistrate's Court in Kuala Lumpur under s. 379A for theft of a Proton Putra and alternatively under s. 411 of the Penal Code, for dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. The charges were as follows:

[2] Main Charge

Bahawa kamu pada 2.5.2001 antara jam 0100 pagi hingga 0700 pagi bertempat di tepi jalan hadapan rumah No. 79, Jalan Hujan Gerimis 1, O.U.G. Kuala Lumpur di dalam daerah Brickfields, di dalam Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah mencuri sebuah kereta jenis Proton Putra 1.8, warna Kelabu, Nombor Pendaftaran WHC 8162, Chasis No. PLIC99DRRXB005728, Enjin No. 4G93P-GC9801 bernilai RM52,000.00 kepunyaan Tang Chee Fung (P) KP: 721127-06-5072. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 379A Kanun Keseksaan.

[3] Alternative Charge

Bahawa kamu pada 7.5.2001 jam lebih kurang 4.00 pagi bertempat di No. 6772, Jalan Bendahara off Jalan Cochrane Kuala Lumpur di dalam daerah Cheras, di dalam Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, didapati dengan curangnya memiliki harta curi sebuah kereta jenis Proton Putra 1.8, warna Kelabu, Nombor Pendaftaran WHC 8162, Chasis No. PLIC99DRRXB005728, Enjin No. 4G93P-GC9 kepunyaan Tang Chee Fung (P) KP: 721127-06-5072 yang mana kamu tahu atau ada sebab-sebab mempercayai bahawa barang tersebut adalah barang curi. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 411 Kanun Keseksaan.

[4] The respondent pleaded not guilty to both the charges and claimed trial, whereby six (6) prosecution's witnesses were called to give evidence in the prosecution's case. At the close of the prosecution's case, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case and, accordingly, acquitted and discharged the respondent without calling for his defence for both the charges. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Magistrate, the Public Prosecutor appealed to the High Court.

The Facts Of The Case

[5] The complainant in this case (PW1) lodged a police report for the lost of his car, a Proton Putra between 1am till 7am on 2 May 2001. During his testimony in the Magistrate's Court, PW1 agreed that he has no knowledge as to how the incident occurred and who had stolen his vehicle.

[6] According to the raiding officer's evidence (PW2), upon information given by one Wong Chee Kong who was arrested in another operation, he arrested the respondent. The said Wong Chee Kong led PW2 and his team to the respondent. Upon arrival at the respondent's premises, PW2 discovered that the respondent was in the midst of repairing his own vehicle. There was another vehicle parked behind the respondent's vehicle of which the respondent denied ownership of.

[7] A search was made on the respondent whereby the police found two keys in the respondent's pocket and one (1) of which can be used to start the vehicle, a Proton Putra ("the said vehicle') which was parked behind respondent's vehicle.

[8] Upon examination of the said vehicle, it was discovered that the said vehicle was reported to be stolen via Cheras Report No. 3988/01. Hence, the respondent was arrested for further investigation.

[9] PW1 identified the said vehicle to be his Proton Putra of which was reported to be stolen. Based on the above discovery, the respondent was charged in the Magistrate's Court, Kuala Lumpur under s. 379A and alternatively under s. 411 of the Penal Code.

[10] One important factor in this case is that there is no ground of judgment prepared or provided by the learned Magistrate as the learned Magistrate has left the judiciary. Hence in this appeal, I merely relied on the notes of evidence noted down by the learned Magistrate at the time of the trial.

[11] Based on the above scenario whereby no grounds of judgment was provided, the petition of appeal ought not to be filed. It is clearly provided by s. 308 of the Criminal Proced