INSP NUR ATIKAH BINTI ADNAN v Unique Gold Palace Sdn Bhd (Ugeswary A/P Selva Raja) (WA-89-253-02/2025)

PENDAHULUAN Alasan penghakiman ini disediakan untuk memperincikan alasan-alasan Mahkamah yang membenarkan permohonan Pemohon pada 14.02.2025.

LATAR BELAKANG KES Pada 14.02.2025, Pemohon telah memfailkan notis permohonan untuk memohon suatu perintah di bawah seksyen 407(2) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah terhadap barang kes.

Pemohon menyatakan Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah IPD Dang Wangi Kuala Lumpur telah selesai menjalankan sebanyak satu siasatan yang mempunyai rampasan barang kes iaitu (1) bentuk cincin warnga kuning dan (1) loket warna kuning.

Kes tersebut telah mendapat keputusan iaitu telah selesai bicara di Mahkamah dengan pengakuan salah Tertuduh. Walaubagaimanapun, barang kes berkaitan siasatan masih belum dilupuskan dan sehingga permohonan difailkan, tiada mana-mana pihak yang tampil membuat tuntutan.

Pemohon memohon satu perintah pelupusan di bawah Seksyen 407(2) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah daripada Mahkamah agar barang kes yang berkaitan dapat dilucuhak dan dimasukkan ke dalam akaun Perbendaharaan.

Mahkamah telah membenarkan permohonan Pemohon tanpa kehadiran Pemilik yang bernama Muhammad Shafie bin Amir Hamdzah [No K/P: 911010- 12-5411] dengan mengarahkan barang kes dilucuthak kepada Kerajaan Malaysia.

Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah, Pemilik telah memfailkan notis rayuan pada 27.02.2025.

DAPATAN MAHKAMAH Mahkamah mendapati Pemohon telah menyatakan di Notis Permohonan bahawa tiada mana-mana pihak yang membuat tuntutan setakat tarikh pendengaran permohonan ini.

Berdasarkan deraf perintah yang difailkan Pemohon di kandungan 2, Pegawai Penyiasat telah menyiasat kes di bawah seksyen 381 Kanun Keseksaan melibatkan repot Dang Wangi/24049/24, no kertas siasatan 2365/24 dan status adalah jatuh hukum.

Mahkamah boleh membuat apa-apa perintah selaras 407 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang berbunyi seperti berikut: Order for disposal of property regarding which offence committed “During or at the conclusion of any inquiry or trial in any criminal Court, the Court may make such order as it thinks for the custody or disposal of any property or document whatsoever produced before it or in its custody or the custody of the police or of any public servant regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which has been used for the commission of any offence. The power herein conferred upon the Court shall include the power to make an order for the forfeiture or confiscation or for the destruction or for the delivery to any person of such property, but shall be exercised subject to any special provisions relating to forfeiture, confiscation, destruction or delivery contained in the written law under which the conviction was had."

Mahkamah juga tidak dibekalkan oleh Pemohon sebarang repot yang dapat mengesahkan barang kes adalah milik Pemilik. Mahkamah sehingga pada tarikh pendengaran permohonan tersebut, tidak mengetahui siapakah pemilik asal barang kes kerana nama responden seperti permohonan adalah Unique Gold Palace Sdn Bhd dan Ugeswary A/P Selva Raja. Mahkamah telah membuat rujukan terhadap kes Koay Ban Siew v Public Prosecutor [1947] CLJU 41[1947] 1 LNS 41 yang telah diputuskan seperti berikut: “There is, however, nothing in this section which will authorise a person who was not a party to the original charge to intervene at a later stage and constitute himself an appellant. In this appeal there was a fundamental error of procedure not authorised by any provision in any law in force in this Settlement. We regret therefore that we must decide that the "appellant" had no authority to file his petition of appeal to the High Court and that in fact there was no valid appeal before that Court at any time. It naturally follows that the learned Judge of that Court could not reserve that matter for the consideration of this Court under s. 306 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed”.

Rujukan dapat dibuat terhadap kes Public Finance Bhd v Public Prosecutor [1989] 2 MLJ 448 yang menyokong fakta yang sama seperti berikut: “It is clear that the applicant was not an accused in the criminal proceedings nor was it a party to the criminal case or matter. As such, under the terms of Criminal Procedure Codes 307(i) the applicant cannot appeal against the forfeiture order”.

Mahkamah turut merujuk kepada Mallal's Criminal Procedure, Edisi Keenam, dalam ulasan terhadap seksyen 407 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang menyatakan di muka surat 6544 seperti berikut: “This section corresponds with section 452 of the Indian CPC 1973 and with section 386 of the Singapore CPC. This section appears to be dealing with the disposal of property in the event the accused has been discharged or acquitted. The CPC seems to be silent as to the disposal of the exhibits in the event the matter is pending appeal. This section deals with four classes of property or document, namely, property produced before the court; property in its custody; property regarding which any offence appears to be committed or property which has been used for the commission of an offence. The property concerned is dealt with in one of four different ways, ie, by destruction, confiscation, forfeiture or delivery to the person entitled to its possession”.

KESIMPULAN Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang telah dikemukakan di atas, Mahkamah ini mendapati rayuan yang difailkan Pemilik adalah tidak bermerit dan wajar ditolak. (KHAIRUNNISAK BINTI HASSNI) Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Lumpur Bertarikh: 31 MEI 2025 Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Cawangan Kuala Lumpur : ADIBA IMAN BINTI MD HASSAN NUR BATRISYIA BINTI RAZIB Peguamcara Pemilik: