Hairuliqram bin Hairuddin v NOOR SYAWAL BINTI ABDUL JALIL (83-28-1/2018)

The accused in this case was charged with an offence punishable under section 420 of Penal Code. The charge proffered against her was as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 22.5.2013 bertempat di alamat Maybank Puchong, Prima GF & 1F, Blok H Pusat Perdagangan Puchong Prima, Jalan Prima 5/4 Taman Puchong Prima, 47100 Puchong, Selangor dalam daerah Petaling di dalam Negeri Selangor, telah menipu Nor Akmar binti Mohd Zubaidi dengan memperdayakan beliau supaya mempercayai kamu boleh menguruskan pakej perlancongan selama 6 hari 5 malam ke Korea untuk 12 orang bermula pada 30 November 2013 dan dengan itu kamu dengan curangnya mendorong beliau untuk meminta En. Badlikhairulsham bin Othman untuk membuat pembayaran sebanyak RM35, 080.00 dengan 7 kali pembayaran menerusi cek dan deposit wang tunai ke akaun Maybank No. 5624 0560 5546 milik Noor Sakinah binti Abdul Jalil yang merupakan adik kamu, yang mana beliau tidak akan menyerahkan wang tersebut sekiranya tidak diperdayakan sedemikian, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 420 Kanun Keseksaan”. Hukuman Penjara selama tempoh tidak kurang dari 1 tahun dan tidak lebih dari 10 tahun dan bolehlah juga dikenakan denda.

When the charge was read and explained to her, the accused pleaded not guilty. At the end of the prosecution’s case, this court found that no prima facie case has been made against the accused and therefore the accused was acquitted and discharged. 3

Dissatisfied with this court’s decision, the learned DPP filed a Notice of Appeal to the High Court. Herein are my reasons for deciding so.

The learned DPP had called these witnesses to testify: SP1 Nor Akmar binti Mohd Zubaidi Complainant SP2 Zurainee bt Zakaria Bank Officer SP3 Badlikhairulhisham bin Othman Public Witness SP4 Insp Noor Hisham bin Muslim Investigative Officer SP5 Noor Sakinah binti Abdul Jalil

These exhibits were tendered: P1: Complainant’s FIR ID2: Hong Leong Bank Receipt dated 21.5.2013 ID3: Cash Deposit receipt Maybank ID4: 8 copies of Whats App conversation ID5: OKT’s Email invoice ID6: The Halmahera Enterprise Invoice (RM28, 690) 4 ID7: The Halmahera Enterprise Invoice (RM31,480) ID8: The Halmahera Enterprise Invoice (RM 34,480) ID9: Itinerary to Seoul, Korea P10: Maybank’s bank statement P11: SP4’s witness statement P12: Arresting report

In essence the learned DPP’s case was based on the complaint lodged by the complainant (SP1). Produced below is the DPP’s case: “Pada bulan Mei 2013, OKT telah menawarkan satu pakej pelancongan melalui Syarikat Halmahera Enterprise kepada SP1 melalui emel di mana OKT menjelaskan kepada SP1 bahawa kos pelancongan ke luar negara iaitu Korea untuk 6 hari 5 malam bagi 12 orang adalah berjumlah RM35,080.00 SP1 telah bersetuju untuk mengamil pakej pelancongan tersebut bagi tujuan sebanyak 12 pekerja syarikat Intelligence Technology dimana SP1, SP3 dan seorang lagi individu bernama Riz Baini merupakan rakan berniaga. SP3 dan rakan berniaga SP1 telah menyerahkan tanggungjawab untuk menguruskan rancangan pelancongan tersebut kepada SP1. OKT telah menunjukkan kepada SP1 gambar-gambar pelanggan yang telah pergi melancong dan juga ‘testimony’ pelanggan-pelanggan yang lain. 5 SP1 telah bersetuju untuk membeli pakej yang ditawaerkan oleh OKT dengan harga yang ditetapkan dimana pembayaran tersebut dilakukan secara 2 peringkat iaitu 50% daripada jumlah keseluruhan dan 50% baki. Kedua-dua SP1 dan SP3 mengesahkan bahawa pakej tersebut ditempat untuk pelancongan yang bermula pada 30.11.2013-6.12.2013. Pembayaran kepada akaun SP5 yang dibekalkan oleh OKT berlaku dalam 7 transaksi seperti berikut:

22.

5.2013

31.

5.2013

31.

5.2013

31.

5.2013

31.

5.2013 RM200.00

31.5.2013

12.

6.2013 RM3600 SP1 bersama dengan rakan perniagaannya telah ke bank dan dengan menggunakan cek HLBB no. 831302 (ID2) telah memasukkan duit seperti jadual di atas. Sejurus itu, SP3 bersama dengan rakan perniagaanya telah melaksanakan pembayaran (II-VII). SP3 juga mengesahkan bahawa SP1 telah melakukan npembayaran di ID2 SP2 mengesahkan segala transaksi kemasukkan wang ke dalalm akaun tersebut adalah seperti jadual di atas (I-VII). Sebagai “bukti” OKT telah kononnya mengeluarkan invoice yang telah dimajukan kepada SP1 sebagai jadual perjalanan (itinerary) sepanjang perlancongan SP1 dan syarikatnya (ID6, 7, dan 8). 6 Beberapa hari sebelum SP1 bersama pekerja syarikatnya seharusnya bertolak ke Korea, SP1 telah membuat semakan dengan syarikat penerbangan MAS dan telah mendapati bahawa tiket yang dikatakan telah dibeli daripad OKT tidak wujud. SP1 mengesahkan bahawa apabila beliau memanggil OKT, OKT telah memaklumkan kepadanya bahawa tiket penerbangan telah ditukar ke “Business Class” kerana terdapat masalah tempahan. Namun demikian, setelah SP1 membuat semakan lagi, pihak MAS mengesahkan bahawa tiadanya apa-apa informasi yang wujud. Apabila SP1 telah meminta penjelasan daripada OKT, OKT telah memberi pelbagai alasan yang tidak munasabah; dan tidak langsung menunjukkan apa-apa bukti beliau telah membuat pembelian tiket penerbangan. SP1, SP3 dan pekerja syarikat tersebuut pada akhirnya tidak dapat melancong ke Korea. OKT dikatakan telah enggan dan/atau gagal untuk membayar balik wang yang telah dibayarkan kepadanya.

In this respect, the onus to prove that a prima facie case has been made out, lies on the DPP pursuant to s. 173 (h) Criminal Procedure Code. The principles of law with regards to this issue is well established. The testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses must be given a maximum evaluation. (See cases Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP [2003] 1 CLJ 734; [2003] 2 AMR 89 dan Roslan @ Rosli Abdullah v. PP [2009] 1 LNS 875). 7

In PP v. Mohd Radzi Bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 his Lordship Gopal Sri Ram FCJ (as he was then) laid down guidelines and explained how a prima facie case is made which is reproduced as follows: “For the guidance of the courts below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by a trial court at the close of the prosecution’s case:

the close of the prosecution’s case, subject to the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused;

(ii) ask yourself the question: If I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is “Yes”, then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is “No” then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted;

(iii) after the defence is called, the accused elects to remain silent, then convict;

(iv) after the defence is called, the accused elects to give evidence, then go through the steps set out in Mat v. Public Prosecutor [1963] MLJ 263.

In this regard, this court placed a maximum evaluation in deciding whether the evidences tendered by the prosecution was successful in proving a prima facie case against the accused. 8

These are the elements that needed to be proven by the learned DPP in a case under s. 420 of the Penal Code as provided under s.415 of the Penal Code: a) The accused fraudulently or dishonestly induces the complainant to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or b) intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do it he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation, or property, is said to “cheat”.

In a Court of Appeal decision of Pasupathy Kanagasaby v PP [2005] 1 CLJ 442, laid down the elements of cheating: “(1) For an offence of cheating under s. 420 read with s. 415, of the Penal Code to be made out, three elements of the offence had to be stipulated. First, the victim had to be deceived. Secondly, there had to have been an inducement such that the victim delivered any property to any person. Finally there had to have been a dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the deceiving person to induce the victim to deliver the property. As to what constituted property, there was no dispute that money for the purpose of cheating amounted to property.” 9

In the case of Sarwan Singh Mehar lwn. PP [2013] 1 LNS 35 bahawa His Lordship Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil laid down the elements of cheating: “…… 13. In establishing a case for cheating under s. 420 against the Appellant, the Respondent must prove that there was a delivery of property to the Appellant; the Appellant induced SP2 to deliver that property to him; SP2 acted upon inducement in consequence of the Appellant ‟s deceit; the Appellant acted dishonestly in so inducing SP2 to part with the property; and SP2 suffered damage or harm as a result of the deceit. (See: Loh Liang Gun v. PP [2007] 5 MLJ 159)…….”

The elements that needed to be proven by the learned DPP in this case are as such: a) that the OKT had defrauded/cheated SP1 and induced her to take tour package with her company The Halhamera for a tour to Korea for 6 days and 5 nights for 12 persons; b) As a result of the inducement, SP1 had paid to the OKT’s company, The Halhamera a total of RM 35,080.00 with 7 times transaction; c) OKT had the intention to cheat SP1 with deceit and fraud. 10

Section 415 of the Penal Code defines what amounts to cheating: Whoever by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, -

fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; is said to “cheat”.

To determine whether or not the elements in s. 420 has been met, it is pertinent to look at what dishonestly means under s. 24 of the Penal Code.

"Dishonestly" Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another person, irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".

Section 420 of the Penal Code states as follows: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived, whether or not the deception practiced was the sole or main inducement, to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter, or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and not more than ten years and with whipping, and shall also be liable to fine. 11

In a case of cheating pursuant to s. 420 of Penal Code, there must be element of inducement and that too is dishonestly to induce. In this particular case according to the testimony of SP1, she testified that the OKT induced her into taking the service of the OKT which was of a tour agent. There were no evidences tendered in court to actually say that the OKT was operating a tour agency, only that SP1 and the OKT had business dealings prior to this case. SP1 had engaged the service of the OKT in providing candy buffet to SP1. SP1 in her testimony said: Travel ni ada ambil apa-apa package pelancongan? ada ambil package untuk syarikat Apa nama travel agency? The Halmera Macam mana boleh tahu dengan package pelancongan? Saya pernah berurusan dengan pemilik sykt ni untuk business lain, kemudian ada utarakan untuk pergi travel dan dia kata ada buat service travel jugak Tadi puan kata berurusan dengan pemilik syarikat Yang saya tahu Noor Syawal Pernah jumpa noor syawal? Pernah Dah berapa lama kenal Noor Syawal? Dalam 2012, saya dah kenal 12 Setahun sebelum dah kenal dengan okt, atas urusan apa? Urusan perniagaan Perniagaan apa? Dia ada supply door gift dan candy buffet

In this instant case, SP1 had actually requested for a quotation from the accused for the purposes of her office trip to Korea. During the cross examination by the counsel, SP1 had agreed to the suggestion that it was SP1 who requested for the quotation for the trip and upon receiving such quotation, she agreed to engage the OKT as a tour agent.

Apart from that SP1 agreed that the OKT had breached her agreement with SP1 by not fulfilling her terms in as per the quotation. As such, from the testimony of SP1 it can be concluded that there were no inducements on the part of the OKT.

In the decision of his Lordship Malik Ishak J (as he then was), in Mohd Jalani Saliman & Anor v PP [1988] 1 CLJ 123 at p. 139 and 140, his Lordship had explained what amounts to inducement: “There must be deception. That deception must be caused by the accused to generate inducement in the mind of the victim. Deception may be by words or conduct. What is sufficient to constitute deception is dependent on the 13 facts of each case. Deception has an element of misleading. It is inducing a person to believe as true something which is false.” Ali J in Mohamed Bin Kasdi v. Public Prosecutor [1969] 1 MLJ 135 was correct when he held the view that to sustain a charge of cheating, there must be evidence of deception practiced upon a person who was dishonestly to part with his money (at p 140); In short, the offence of cheating is completed once the culprit obtains possession of the property by a trick (Dick GW (AIR (A) 538; Sharbly bin Ahmad v. Public Prosecutor (Mallal‟s Digest at p 405 para 1260) -at p 141. It is said that when a person fraudulently represents as an existing fact that which is not in fact an existing fact commits the offence of cheating.”

In this particular case, there was no evidence by SP1 to state that the OKT had misled SP1. SP1 saw pictures and testimonies of the OKT customers in successfully bringing people who have engaged her service as a tour agent and then she decided to engage the service of the OKT. Macam mana boleh tertarik dengan offer okt? Telah tunjuk gambar dan testimony customers’ dan dia sendiri dekat overseas. Byk ke gambar? Banyak gambar dia dan anak2 sahaja Puan tengok gambar tu dengan siapa? Saya seorang Lepas tgk gambar puan buat apa? Saya tertarik dan ada perbincangan lanjut Perbincangan ini berlaku sebelum kamu bank in duit? 14 Ya betul ada beberapa pertemuan sebelum bank in duit Duit RM34 ribu lebih tu duit siapa? Duit syarikat Puan kata ada perbincangan dengan okt, perbincangan tu melalui perjumpaan ke macam mana? Perjumpaan informal semasa birthday party anak dia

At the same time, SP1 conceded to the fact that the OKT had paid back a total of RM8000 to SP1 as a refund. SP3 in his testimony also informed the court that he met with the OKT when the OKT returned a cheque to him totalling to RM15, 740. Puan jawab puan tidak cukup duit, tetapi pada 30.11. puan telah pergi ke Hong Kong. Setuju Setuju saya katakan puan pernah mintak refund daripada okt Seuju Apabila tindakan minta refund wujud kontrak di antara puan dengan okt Tidak setuju SPA yang berlaku adalah mungkir untuk menepati contract Breach daripada okt Okt telah breach contract Setuju Ada terima refund? 15 Ada terima RM8, 000 refund dan RM15, 000 cheque tendang Setuju setakat hari ini puan tiada bukti berkaitan cheque tendang ini. tiada Examination in chief of SP3: Kamu pernah jumpa syawal Pernah jumpa sekali Bila Masa dia pulangkan satu cheq kepada saya Cheque apa tu Cheque pulangkan wang bila kami tidak dapat ke Korea Berapa ribu RM15,740 Cheque pulang duit? Ya The fact that there was a refund by the OKT proves that there was no intention by the OKT to deceive SP1. Following the decision of Mohd Jalani Saliman (supra), “It is trite law mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution. The distinction between a case of mere breach of contract and one of cheating 16 depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of the alleged inducement which may be judged by his subsequent act. The most essential ingredient that has to be proved by the prosecution is the fact that the complainant was cheated and thereby induced to deliver the money to the accused”.

Therefore, from the decision above, it is crystal clear that in order for the accused to have cheated SP1 in an offence of s. 420 the dishonest intention must be been present from the onset when the offence was committed. In this instant case, the dishonest intention to defraud SP1 was missing. The Investigating Officer in his testimony stated that he had investigated the copies of WhatsApp conversation given to him by SP1. The IO then stated that he found that the entire conversation was more of a discussion which then turned into SP1 asking the OKT to fulfil her promises.

It is of the considered view that the failure of the DPP to call other witnesses tantamount to a gap in the Prosecution’s case. To my mind, the failure to call Riz Baini who was the person mentioned by SP1 and SP3 as he was also there when the transaction took place. At the same time, the OKT’s husband Naza bin Mat Rozeki was not called. He is one of the owners of the OKT’s company The Halmahera.

Apart from that, this court believes that a representative from MAS and Air Asia should have been called because SP1 in her testimony stated that she had spoken to MAS and Air Asia’s representatives pertaining to the flight tickets. Had they been called, it will be better for the Prosecution’s case as 17 there is corroboration in which the Court will have the benefit to actually find out whether there existed such flight tickets or not. In a Federal Court decision of Ti Huee Chiang v PP [1995] 3 CLJ 1 where his Lordship Edgar Joseph (as he then was) held: “We recognise that the function of the prosecution is to prosecute and that does not mean that it must discharge the functions both of the prosecution and the defence. On the other hand, it is clear law, that the prosecution must have in Court all witnesses from whom statements have been taken but they have a discretion whether to call them or not. (See Teh Lee Tong v. PP, [1956] MLJ 194). That discretion, however, must be exercised having regard to the interests of justice, which includes being fair to the accused (per Lord Parker CJ in Oliva v. R [1965] 2 WLR 1028, 1035) and to call witnessess essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is based, whether the effect of their testimony is for or against the prosecution (per Lord Roche in the Ceylon Privy Council case of Seneviratne v. R [1936] 3 All E.R. 36, at 49, applied in R. v. Nugent [1976] 65 Cr. App. R. 40). In R v. Nugent [1976] 65 Cr. App. R. Park J sitting in the Central Criminal Court introduced an exception to the rule in Oliva which says that if a potential witness concerned is capable of belief, then it is the prosecutor's duty to call the witness despite the fact that the testimony he will be giving will be inconsistent with the case the prosecution intends to prove (per Lord Parker CJ [1965] 2 WLR at p. 1035, 1036). The exception introduced by Park J being that if in the circumstances the calling of the witness concerned by the prosecution would confuse the jury as to what it is that the prosecution are seeking to prove, then the prosecution would be under no duty to call the witness.” 18

The Court has to weigh and evaluate with maximum evaluation the entire case of the Prosecution and whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the OKT. Should there be a prima facie case, then the OKT should be called to enter her defence. If the OKT chooses to remain silent, the next question is, can this Court then convict her on the totality of the evidence contained in the prosecution's case. This Court, decided that on the basis of the doubts raised as discussed above, found that it was not safe for this Court to call the OKT to enter her defence.

Adopting the decision in Sia Soon Suan v Public Prosecutor [1966] 1 MLJ 116 where his Lordship Ong Hock Thye AG CJ (Malaya) (as he was then) held: “(3) the requirements of strict proof in a criminal case cannot be relaxed to bridge any material gap in the prosecution evidence. Irrespective of whether the court is otherwise convinced in its own mind of the guilt or innocence of an accused, its decision must be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else and therefore the appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.”

As such, on a maximum evaluation and the reasoning provided above, this Court found that the Prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The accused was acquitted and discharged. 19

My decision was founded on the reasons provided above. Dated: 20th January 2020 .............T.T…………. (NURSHAHIRA HJ ABDUL SALIM) Magistrate Magistrate’s Court 4 Petaling Jaya Deputy Public : Hairuliqram bin Hairuddin Prosecutor Jabatan Peguam Negara Cawangan Negeri Selangor. Defence Counsel: Mohd Radzlan bin Jalaludin Advocates & Solicitors No. 337, Level 3, Block 5 Laman Seri Business Park No. 7 Persiaran Sukan Seksyen 13, 40100 Shah Alam, Selangor 20