KOTA KINABALU: The High Court granted leave to a 54-year-old businessman to apply for judicial review seeking the return of his money which he claimed has been unlawfully retained by the police.
Justice Datuk David Wong Dak Wah yesterday granted leave for judicial review to Anthony Arputasamy from Peninsular Malaysia against Sabah Commissioner of Police and a chief inspector as first and second respondents respectively.
In his application filed on May 4, this year, Arputasamy is seeking an order of mandamus against the respondents to return the sum of RM10,000 to him, or alternatively, a declaration that the respondents are indebted to him of the said amount of money.
He is also seeking an order of mandamus that the respondents shall pay to him the sum of RM11,518.95, a declaration that the respondents are indebted to him of the said money and an order of mandamus to the first respondent to undertake and complete investigation of a police report he lodged on April 30, 2004.
Apart from that he is also seeking for damages from the respondents and costs.
In his affidavit in support, Arputasamy claimed that in February, 2004, he went to his office to audit his company’s business and found that his employees had misappropriated the company’s funds and went to the police station to lodge a report of the incident.
Resulting from the audit, he revealed that the amount of money missing was in the sum of RM21,518.95.
After making the police report, Arputasamy claimed that the second respondent contacted him and told the latter that the employee had offered to pay the sum of RM10,000 which would be deposited with him at the police station on February, 14, 2004.
The applicant pointed out that the second respondent had asked him to go to the police station to collect the money but he was away in Kuala Lumpur on business at that time and informed the second respondent that he would collect the money from him.
However, when the applicant met the second respondent upon his return from Kuala Lumpur, he (the second respondent) denied that the RM10,000 was with him.
The applicant also said that the employee who had agreed to pay the RM10,000 in one lump sum and settle the balance of RM11,518.95 by monthly installments had by now reneged on his promise by asking the second respondent not to pay the money to him.
Eventually the applicant had to institute civil proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court in Tawau against the employees and obtained a judgment in default on January 12, 2007, but still is unable to recover any money from him.
Meanwhile, the applicant continued to pursue for the return of his RM10,000 from the department of the first respondent and other agencies but to no avail.
He claimed that the first and second respondents did not return the sum of RM10,000 and because of the action of the second respondent, the judgment debtors had refused to pay the balance of RM11,518.95.
He said that on August 9, 2011 after approaching Suhakam for assistance, a letter was written to the first respondent but still no action was forthcoming.
The applicant also claimed that the second respondent and the department of the first respondent have not submitted the investigation papers to the Attorney General.
The next hearing of the applicant’s case will be fixed by the High Court within 14 days.
The applicant was represented by counsel Marcel Jude Jospeh while Federal Counsel Rahazlan acted for the respondents.