You are on page 1of 5

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

Subsequent to this meeting. planning and instructing Ali to open the bank account as well as renting the house. He was instructed by Sekaran to rent a house in the name of the firm. 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. 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. 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. GOOD However. The fact is Ali had mention Leong’s name in the involvement of opening the bank account but unfortunately Leong has disappeared. Under section 6. the issue is whether evidence of Ali can be solely used in the prosecution. Ali. The issue is whether Ali’s evidence is relevant to convict the act of corruption by both the accused above. While under section 8(2). who help Chandra and Sekaran was previously charged for abetment has given evidence for the prosecution. The law apply to the action is under Section 6 and 8(2) of Evidence Act 1952 (EA 1952). Therefore. The fact is Ali was approached by Chandra and Sekaran and they had a meeting at Ali’s house. evidence of Ali showed that there is a conduct done by the accused and the coaccused by having a meeting. The prosecutor has to prove diligence search has been made to avoid section 114(g) to be invoked by the defence.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. This was shown in the case of Amrita Lal Hazra v R. 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 . Ali’s statement is relevant to the fact and issue. 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.000 to make claim at the Accountant General’s Department. The issue here is whether Leong is a material witness in this case. On the other hand. Thus the evidence of Ali should be treated with caution as stated under section 133 of EA 1952.

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. Example of the case as in Ravindran a/l Kandasamu v PP. 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. the evidence above are relevant and admissible. 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 that Ali had rent a house from Rahmat who is the owner of the house as instructed by Sekaran. Hence. (Analysis GOOD) Another issues was whether the evidence of the identification (perhaps u should change the word identification to production of. Thus these evidence are relevant and admissible to the fact and issue. Under Section 9. thus the bank account statement is an important evidence to show the money of RM200 000 had been inside the account of the . Further. The law apply is under section 8(2) of EA 1952 and section 9 of EA 1952. thus it become a primary evidence in this case and must be produced under Section 61 and 62 of Evidence Act 1952... The fact is the cheque for the said money was issued and the money had been banked into the account of the firm.. 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. Rahmat however had admitted the renting by the production of Tenancy Agreement and a deposit receipt of RM10. the balance left are only RM5. 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. The production of the original documents (tenancy agreement and deposit receipt) as a documentary evidence under Section 3. This is to confirm that the voucher had been forged by the accused using his broken typewriter.30. 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. The fact that all forged documents bears the firm’s address.. Since the evidence of the forged voucher and the typewriter are the real evidence under Section 3. However.000 under the name of AB Insecticide Trading. 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. (Your focus of PW here is Ali or Rahmat? If Rahmat consider what he will say in court.some documents relevant or not. the identification of the forged voucher which were produced using a broken typewriter in Sekaran’s house must be identified as a forged documents by an examination of an expertise (expert) as stated under section 45 of EA 1952.) of forged vouchers and other supporting documents and the broken typewriter are relevant to the fact and issue of the crime.

any confession made during the investigation is not relevant because under Section 113 of CPC.Analysis of section 30 as both are co-accused. promise and inducement involved thus it is relevant under section 24 of EA 1952. Thus the complaint report is relevant and admissible. As the bank statement is an original evidence under Section 3 of Evidence Act 1952. Hence. The next issue is whether Chandra’s confession to the Magistrate is relevant. The fact is Chandra had made a confession to his involvement in the corruption against the government. The issue is whether statement made by Chandra is relevant. the confession is relevant and admissible. 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.since Chandra’s confession is relevant and admissible under s. However. You missed out one more issue . oppression. Therefore.firm. . 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. Hence. The confession made by Chandra is voluntarily although he had been interrogated within 8 hours but there is no element of threat. Section 17(2) stated that it is a confession as it made by a person accused of an offence. the evidence above is relevant and admissible. therefore it become a primary evidence and must be tendered to the court under Section 61 and 62 of the Evidence Act 1952. 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. 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. Next is the issue of whether Chandra’s statement to MACC officers can be used in the court or not. the confession of Chandra is not relevant and not admissible. 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 next issue is whether Chandra’s confession can be used by the Prosecutor against Sekaran or not. 26. The statement made by Chandra to MACC officer comply with the definition of confession by the accused under section 17(2) of EA 1952.