IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF SELAYANG

IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR

CRIMINAL CASE NO 83-970-2013



BETWEEN


PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
SALMAH







Prosecution by
NORDIANA BINTI MOHD SHAARI
(0923426)
FACTS
Puan Salmah Kassim, a 29 years old Manager, was charged for causing hurt and
obstruction a public servant under section 332 of the Penal Code. The punishment in
under the same act, she shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine or with both.
On the 14/4/2013, the accused was driving her car when she was caught in a traffic
congestion and during that particular time, the victim, PFC Allen who is a Police officer,
was on duty and manning the situation.
The accused, due to impatience and her aggressive behaviour step outside of her car,
walks towards the victim and started to argue, telling the victim that he did not performed
his job. When the victim asked her to go back to her car she suddenly punched the victim
in the nose causing it to bleed.


SUBMISSION
Tuan Hakim, there are certain grounds for this accused to be given a maximum punishment.
(1) Prevalence or rampancy of offence
The offence was causing hurt and obstructing a public servant who is on duty. It can be said
that if she would not get a maximum punishment, this case would be a common in the future.
Nowadays, we can see a lot of news reported in media about the public servant being
disrespected day by day. In some cases until to the extent of harm and even death.
PP v Teh Ah Cheng [1976]2MLJ 186
The accused pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition and was
released on bond. In sentencing, generally the public interest must necessarily be one of the
prime considerations.
(2) Public interest
The act was done in public and this shows that how disrespectful she is and the public are
watching. Maximum punishment must be imposed to her as a lesson and also to the public.
This is because if there is lesser punishment to be imposed, it would lead to the same offence
or more serious in the future, the public will not afraid because they think they would get a
lighter punishment if they do assault the public servant.
Loo Choon Fatt v PP [1976] 2 MLJ 256
.. the court should not be moved by the mitigation plea of the offender.. the correct approach
is to balance between the interest of public and that of offender..
Safian b. Abdullah & anor v PP [1983] 1 CLJ 324
.. the court will consider in regards of the act of violence and the mode of committing it..
(3) Public servants credibility
The act of assaulting of the public servant also has been done in the public and this has
caused the credibility and also the dignity of the public servant in the eyes of public. Plus, in
is improper for the accused to express her anger towards the public servant and at the same
time she is having another problem. Public servant on that day is just doing his job sincerely
in managing the traffic congestion flow.
Raja Izzuddin Shah v PP [1979] 1 MLJ 270
Fact: The complainant was being slapped, dragged by the shirt and pushed against the wall
by accused while performing his duty.
Due to the evidence of the accused being remorseful and repented, the court granted public
service.


CONCLUSION
By relying to the ground above, the prosecution plea to this court to give heavier sentence to the
accused as a lesson for her and also as an lesson to public that this is not the way to express
anger towards public servant. Such act also is an embarrassment and lowered the dignity of the
public servant. In certain extent, if there is no maximum punishment to be sentenced towards the
accused, it would lead to cause certain problems in terms of public interest in the future.