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

2025 MarsdenLR 2618

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
TAN SENG HUAT – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: BA-42K-7-10/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohd Nazri Omran ,Respondent Advocate: Dato' Ishak Mohd Yusoff,Dato' Hanafiah Zakaria,Ahmad Faiz Razali

The appellant's convictions were quashed due to the misjoinder of charges and prosecution's failure to prove the existence of forged documents, central to the charged offences.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Sections 471 and 465 - Conviction for using forged documents - Appellant found guilty of two offences involving Directors and Members Resolutions of a company - Convicted based on testimonies of witnesses and evidence, including handwriting analysis - Appellant sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment and fines under both charges - Charges deemed duplicitous, leading to a miscarriage of justice. (Paras 19-29, 47)

(B) Misjoinder of Offences - Duplicity of charges misrepresented distinct offences; appellant misled on specifics, constituting a significant procedural irregularity. Court rules that prosecution failed to prove the existence of forged documents, which are crucial elements of the charged offences. (Paras 46-66)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with using false documents pertaining to corporate guarantees while being a shareholder of the company, which he allegedly forged. Historical context includes a personal dispute, but allegations raised only years after financial action was taken.

Findings of Court:
The trial court erred in assuming and confirming the existence of forged documents, with the appellate court identifying confusion in the charges that led to a misrepresentation of legal accountability.

Issues: Were the charges duplicitous? Did misjoinder occur that harmed the appellant's defense?

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that criminal charges must be clear and distinct to avoid confusion, ruling that failure to precisely outline the nature of the charges constitutes a significant error. Conviction cannot stand when the basis of charges—existence of forged documents—is not proven.

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions quashed.

Table of Content
1. appeal against conviction and sentencing (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of prosecution’s evidence (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. trial judge’s findings on prosecution’s case (Para 14 , 19 , 20)
4. defence claims personal vendetta (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. issues raised in appeal (Para 22)
6. standard of review for appellate courts (Para 23 , 24)
7. duplicitous charges and their implications (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
8. importance of document authenticity (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
9. confusion regarding evidence appraisal (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
10. court's decision on the appeal (Para 49)
11. findings related to document execution (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
12. assessment of evidence of forgery (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
Wendy Ooi Su Ghee JC:

Introduction

[1] This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18 October 2024 passed by the Sessions Court Judge at Shah Alam, Selangor wherein the trial judge found the appellant guilty of committing two (2) offences under s 471 of the Penal Code and punishable under s 465 of the same Code.

Background

[2] The charges against the appellant read as follows:

First amended charge

"Bahawa kamu pada tarikh 16 May 2012, bertempat di Crystal Crown Group Alluminium Extrusion (M) Sdn Bhd, Lot 14860, Jalan Pusara, Telok Gong, 42000, Pefabuhan Klang, dalam Daerah Klang, dalam Negeri Selangor dengan curangnya telah menggunakan sebagai tulen satu dokumen iaitu Directors Reseolution dan Members Resolution, Syarikat Crystal Crown Group AHuminium Extrusion (M) Sdn Bhd bertarikh 16 May 2012, yang kamu mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai bahawa dokumen tersebut adalah dokumen palsu, oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 471 Kanun Keseksaan dan boieh dihukum di bawah s 465 Kanun Keseksaan. "

Second amended charge

"Bahawa kamu pada tarikh 31 May 2012, bertempat di Crystal Crown Group AHuminium Extrusion (M) Sdn Bhd, Lot 14860, Jalan Pusara, Telok Gong, 42000, Pelabuhan Klang, dalam Daerah Klang, dalam Negeri Selangor dengan curangnya telah menggunakan sebagai tulen satu dokumen iaitu Directors Reseolution dan Members Resolution, Syarikat Crystal Crown Group AHuminium Extrusion (M) Sdn Bhd bertarikh 31 May 2012, yang kamu mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai bahawa dokumen tersebut adalah dokumen palsu, oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 471 Kanun Keseksaan dan boieh dihukum dibawah s 465 Kanun Keseksaan."

[3] After a lengthy trial that span over a period of almost two (2) years which involved ten (10) prosecution witnesses and one (1) defence witness, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to one (1) year six (6) months imprisonment and a fine of RM10,000-00 in default one (1) year imprisonment for the 1st amended charge. The same sentences were meted out for the 2nd amended charge. The trial judge also ordered the sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively from the date of conviction (ie 18 October 2024).

Prosecution Case

[4] A total of ten (10) witnesses were called by the prosecution where their testimonies are summarized as below.

[5] PW1 (Tan Hock Chuan - the complainant) and the appellant were directors and shareholders of a company registered under the name and style of Crystal Crown Group Alluminium Extrusion (M) Sdn Bhd ("CGA").

[6] The appellant was also the founder of CGA in 2009 where he held 70% of the shares in the said company. The other five (5) shareholders were Choong Fook Seong (PW4), Choo Chee Chien (PW6), Goh Sze Wal, Lim Lian Chee, and Tan Yi Ming. PW4 held 10% of the shares with the remaining 20% of the shares to the other shareholders.

[7] PW1 who is also the nephew of the appellant, managed business operations in CGA. The appellant, on the other hand, managed CGA's finances including obtaining bank loans.

[8] Sometime in 2018, PW1 was informed by Mr Ong, a manager of Citibank Berhad, that CGA was a corporate gua

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top