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

1999 MarsdenLR 2177

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

MOHD SAARI YUSOFF, J


AZMI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN
versus
LEFTENAN-KOLONEL HARBAJAN SINGH A/L JAGAT SINGH

GUAMAN SIVIL NO S1-21-08-91

Decided On : 09-06-99

Advocates:
Karpal Singh (M/s Karpal Singh & Co.), Asmabi bte Mohamad (Peguam Kanan Persekutuan)

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

(Datuk Mohd. Saari Bin Yusoff H)

1. In writ and statement of claim, plaintiff seeks the following relief:

"(1) deklarasi bahawa sabitan plaintif dan pembuangan kerjanya dengan keji dari perkhidmatan Seri Paduka Baginda oleh Mahkamah Tentera Kuching, Sarawak pada 21 Januari 1988 salah disisi undang-undang dan adalah batal;

(2) deklarasi bahawa plaintif masih seorang pegawai Angkatan Tentera Malaysia yang berpangkat Mejar tanpa kelucutan kekananan pangkat;

(3) perintah bahawa plaintif dibayar segala gaji, elaun-elaun dan faedah-faedah yang plaintif berhak dari 21 Januari 1988; [2]

(4) gantirugi untuk pembuangan kerja yang salah.

(5) Bunga;

(6) Kos;

(7) Relief selanjut atau yang lain yang dianggap berpatutan oleh Mahkamah mulia ini."

Factual background

2. The plaintiff at all material times an officer with the rank of Major in ATM. The first defendant at all material times the President of Court-Martial, Kuching, Sarawak. The second defendant at all material times the confirming officer who confirmed the decision of the Court-Martial.

3. The plaintiff was charged under S. 61 (a) of the Armed Forces Act 1972 as follows:

"ADA BERSANGKUT PAUT DENGAN PENYALAHGUNAAN SECARA TIPUAN HARTA AWAM YANG BERTENTANGAN DENGAN SEKSYEN 61 (a) AKTA ANGKATAN TENTERA 1972 laitu kamu di 71 KOD, Kem Pending, Kuching Sarawak pada 20 dan 21 Januari 1987 telah membantu Kapt (KM) RAMLY BIN MANAF (3001387) menyalahgunakan secara tipuan 60 tilam "Double Decker" kepunyaan ATM iaitu harta awam dengan mengarahkan 550752 PW 1 YAIYAH BIN ELON untuk menyiapkan borang permintaan PAT L 8A (pindaan 1987) dan mengaturkan penjualan tilam-tilam tersebut kepada seorang bernama Encik Lim Lian Heng (KP No. K707378)." (underline added) [3]

4. The Plaintiff was jointly tried with one Captain Ramly who was charged under S. 61 (a) of the AFA 1972 as follows:

"MENYALAH GUNAKAN SECARA TIPUAN HARTA AWAM YANG BERTENTANGAN DENGAN SEKSYEN 61 (a) AKTA ANGKATAN TENTERA, 1972.

Iaitu ia, di KUCHING, Sarawak pada (atau lebih kurang) 21 Jan 87 secara tidak jujur menjual 60 tilam double-decker kepunyaan Angkatan Tentera, harta awam, kepada En. LIM LIAN HENG, Nombor Kad Pengenalan K 707378, dan menerima jumlah wang sebanyak sembilan ratus ringgit sebagai pembayaran."

5. Captain Ramly was acquitted and discharged at the close of prosecution's case while the plaintiff was found guilty of the charge. However, at the point when the members of Court-Martial were deliberating about the sentence, learned Judge Advocate ruled that as Capt. Ramly was acquitted, the plaintiff could not be found guilty. In the result, he directed members of Court-Martial to redeliberate. Upon redeliberation, the Court-Martial found the plaintiff guilty under S. 87 which charge reads as follows:

"MELAKUKAN SESUATU PERBUATAN YANG MEMUDARATKAN KEADAAN BAIK DAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN YANG BERTENTANGAN DENGAN SEKSYEN 87 AKTA ANGKATAN TENTERA 1972 [4]

Iaitu dia, 71 KOD Kem Pending, Kuching, Sarawak pada 20 Januari dan 21 Januari 1987 telah membantu Kapt. (KM) Ramly bin Abd Manaf (3001387), menjual 60 tilam "double decker" kepunyaan ATM iaitu harta awam dengan mengarah 550752 PW 1 Yaiyah Bin Elon untuk menyiapkan Borang Permintaan BAT L 8A (Pindaan 1987) dan mengaturkan penjualan tilam-tilam tersebut kepada seorang bernama Encik Lim Lian Heng (KP No. K707378)." (underline added)

On sentence, the plaintiff was dismissed from service.

6. In substituting a charge under section 87 AFA 1972 for the original charge under section 61(a) AFA 1972, the Court-Martial purported to exercise the powers under Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 r. 47 (2) which states:

"(2) When an accused is charged with one offence and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of that section, he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed although he was not charged with it."

7. Issue for determination is whether the C

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