LAW OF EVIDENCE 1

LAW 824
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION 1

Prepared By:
I
II

SITI ASIAH BINTI ABD AZIZ (2015482362)

DAYANG RADJWILI HAFIZAH BT ABANG OTHMAN

III

(2015406558)
NUR AZIMAH BINTI MOHD TAMAN (2015698574)

Prepared For:
PUAN HABIBAH
21th December 2015

The fact in issue in this case is whether Chandra as an accountant of AG Department

and Sekaran who is a police officer can be convicted for corruption under Section 18 MACC
2009 with the help of Ali by using of two forged vouchers for the value of RM200,000 to
make claim at the Accountant Generals Department.
Ali, who help Chandra and Sekaran was previously charged for abetment has given
evidence for the prosecution. The issue is whether Alis evidence is relevant to convict the
act of corruption by both the accused above. The fact is Ali was approached by Chandra and
Sekaran and they had a meeting at Alis house. Subsequent to this meeting, Chandra and
Sekaran have instructed Ali to find someone to help for open a bank account of fictitious firm
named AB Insecticide Trading where they are planning to get a big money and wish Ali to
join the plan. Ali met Leong whose friend Manager of HSBC to open an account in the name
of the firm at the HSBC bank. He was instructed by Sekaran to rent a house in the name of
the firm.
The law apply to the action is under Section 6 and 8(2) of Evidence Act 1952 (EA
1952). Under section 6, it shows that there are the existence of same transaction of the act
of the both accused with Ali as Ali was giving a statement with regards to the evidence of
continuity of action of corruption from the beginning of transaction until the end. While under
section 8(2), evidence of Ali showed that there is a conduct done by the accused and the coaccused by having a meeting, planning and instructing Ali to open the bank account as well
as renting the house. This was shown in the case of Amrita Lal Hazra v R. Therefore, Alis
statement is relevant to the fact and issue.
GOOD
However, the issue is whether evidence of Ali can be solely used in the prosecution.
The fact that Ali was an accomplice as he was previously charged for abetting Chandra and
Sekaran in committing the corruption and already being convicted. The law apply is under
Section 114(b) of EA 1952 where any statement of an accomplice is unworthy of credit
except the statement is being an independent evidence. Thus the evidence of Ali should be
treated with caution as stated under section 133 of EA 1952.
The issue here is whether Leong is a material witness in this case. The fact is Ali had
mention Leongs name in the involvement of opening the bank account but unfortunately
Leong has disappeared. The prosecutor has to prove diligence search has been made to
avoid section 114(g) to be invoked by the defence.
On the other hand, there is an issue whether evidence of Ali renting a house through
Rahmat under the name of AB Insecticide Trading (fictitious firm) with the production of

some documents relevant or not. (Your focus of PW here is Ali or Rahmat? If Rahmat
consider what he will say in court...) The fact that Ali had rent a house from Rahmat who is
the owner of the house as instructed by Sekaran. Rahmat however had admitted the renting
by the production of Tenancy Agreement and a deposit receipt of RM10,000 under the name
of AB Insecticide Trading. The law apply is under section 8(2) of EA 1952 and section 9 of
EA 1952. There is a relevant evidence under Section 8(2) that shows the conduct of the firm
entering the involvement in the crime by entering the name in the tenancy agreement to rent
the house. Example of the case as in Ravindran a/l Kandasamu v PP. Further, there is
evidence to show that the existence of the firm namely AB Insecticides through identification
by Rahmat by confirming the tenancy agreement and deposit receipt produced which is
relevant under Section 9 of Evidence Act 1952. The production of the original documents
(tenancy agreement and deposit receipt) as a documentary evidence under Section 3. The
tenancy agreement and the deposit receipt also become a primary evidence in this case
which must be produced in the court under Section 61 and section 62 of Evidence Act 1952.
Hence, the evidence above are relevant and admissible. (Analysis GOOD)
Another issues was whether the evidence of the identification (perhaps u should
change the word identification to production of...) of forged vouchers and other supporting
documents and the broken typewriter are relevant to the fact and issue of the crime. The fact
that all forged documents bears the firms address, name and account numbers at the HSBC
and was typed by Sekaran using an ordinary typewriter which the words R slightly tilted to
the left. Under Section 9, the identification of the forged voucher which were produced using
a broken typewriter in Sekarans house must be identified as a forged documents by an
examination of an expertise (expert) as stated under section 45 of EA 1952. An expertise
(expert) has to be called as a prosecution witness to identify the differences of the genuine
vouchers and the other documents with the forged one. This is to confirm that the voucher
had been forged by the accused using his broken typewriter. Since the evidence of the
forged voucher and the typewriter are the real evidence under Section 3, thus it become a
primary evidence in this case and must be produced under Section 61 and 62 of Evidence
Act 1952. This is illustrated in a case of Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim v PP in order to establish
the identity of things relevant to the fact and issue which require the calling of an expert.
Thus these evidence are relevant and admissible to the fact and issue. OK
The other issue is whether the account statement of the AB Insecticide relevant to
show the corruption money of RM200 000 had been banked in the said account. The fact is
the cheque for the said money was issued and the money had been banked into the account
of the firm. However, the balance left are only RM5.30, thus the bank account statement is
an important evidence to show the money of RM200 000 had been inside the account of the

firm. As the bank statement is an original evidence under Section 3 of Evidence Act 1952,
therefore it become a primary evidence and must be tendered to the court under Section 61
and 62 of the Evidence Act 1952. Hence, the evidence above is relevant and admissible.
The issue where the anonymous complaint in the MACC office showed that there is
the first information report as stated under section 9 of EA 1952 to introduce the investigation
of the involvement of accused in committing crime and it is however had to be tendered in
the court with the complainant. Thus the complaint report is relevant and admissible.
Next is the issue of whether Chandras statement to MACC officers can be used in
the court or not. The issue is whether statement made by Chandra is relevant. The fact that
Chandra had claimed that he got nothing to do with the plan and was forced by Sekaran as
Sekaran was in grave financial difficulties. The statement made by Chandra to MACC officer
comply with the definition of confession by the accused under section 17(2) of EA 1952.
Section 17(2) stated that it is a confession as it made by a person accused of an offence.
The confession made by Chandra is voluntarily although he had been interrogated within 8
hours but there is no element of threat, oppression, promise and inducement involved thus it
is relevant under section 24 of EA 1952.
However, any confession made during the investigation is not relevant because
under Section 113 of CPC, the confession during the investigation cannot be used in the
court except if there is a discovery of fact under Section 27 of Evidence Act 1952. Therefore,
the confession of Chandra is not relevant and not admissible.
The next issue is whether Chandras confession to the Magistrate is relevant. The
fact is Chandra had made a confession to his involvement in the corruption against the
government. He claimed that he was forced by Sekaran who insisted in getting the money
and he also claimed that Sekaran was detailing the plan and he was heavily indebted with
Sekaran.

The confession made is satisfied in the definition of confession under section

17(2) of EA 1952 where Chandra as co-accused make a confession and the confession was
made voluntarily in front of the Magistrate which is relevant under section 26 of EA 1952.
Hence, the confession is relevant and admissible.
You missed out one more issue - since Chandras confession is relevant and admissible
under s. 26, the next issue is whether Chandras confession can be used by the Prosecutor
against Sekaran or not- Analysis of section 30 as both are co-accused.