Rosli Lajim and Burhanuddin Nurdin, both aged 20, pleaded not guilty before judge Duncan Sikodol to their charges framed under Section 376 (2) and Section 376 (1) of the Penal Code, respectively.

Both the indictments carry a maximum jail of 20 years and also liable to whipping, upon conviction.

Rosli was alleged to have raped a 14-year-old girl at a house in a village in Menumbok at 10pm on Dec 9 while Burhanuddin was accused of raping a girl aged 12 at an unnumbered house in a village in Membakut at 11.30pm on May 9.

The court set June 20 for the trial of both the cases and released the two accused persons on bail of RM8,000 deposited with two local sureties each, pending disposal of their cases.

Deputy public prosecutor Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin appeared for the prosecution.

Judge Duncan Sikodol imposed the sentence on Ajang Wan, 51, after he pleaded guilty to set fire to a workers’ house at a crocodile farm at Kampung Putaton in Penampang, on Jan 10.

He was convicted under Section 436 of the Penal Code which carries a maximum jail term of 20 years and also liable to a fine, upon conviction.

Deputy public prosecutor Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin told the court that the complainant who was tasked to take care of the house had lodged a report against the accused stating that he had committed arson.

Investigation revealed that the accused was under the influence of alcohol when he committed the offence.

A witness saw the accused fleeing the house with one of his legs burnt because of the fire.

In pleading for a light sentence, the undefended accused said he was suffering from mental illness since five years ago where he heard voices asking him to beat and disturb others.

He said he was still under medication and had been admitted to a mental hospital in Kuching, Sarawak, as well as a mental hospital here.

Ajang who hails from Ulu Baram, Sarawak urged the court to impose a lenient sentence as he has children to support.

Wan Azwan Aiman pressed for a deterrent sentence as this offence was a serious one.

Meanwhile, the Indonesian complainant was present in court to explain her impact statement because of the case.

The complainant told the court that she lost among others, cash, electrical appliance and kitchenware.

When asked by the judge what her relation with the accused was, the complainant answered: “None.”

To another question by the court, the complainant said the accused had been begging for her love since September last year but she had explained many times to the accused that she could not accept his love because she has to earn a living to support her children.

She also said every time she told that to the accused, he would come to the said place in a drunken manner and make disturbance by breaking the house door and tables.

However, the accused denied what were said by the complainant.

HAPPY WITH JUDGEMENT: Erni Dekritawati Yuliana Bukhairi, the daughter of Sosilawati, surrounded by reporters after hearing the High Court judgement. — Bernama photo

SHAH ALAM: The High Court yesterday found guilty all the four accused in the murder of cosmetics millionairess Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others three years ago, and sentenced them to death by hanging.

Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir said he was satisfied that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case against former lawyer N Pathmanabhan and his three farm workers, T Thilaiyalagan, R Matan and R Kathavarayan.

Pathmanabhan,43, Thilaiyalagan, 21, Matan, 22, and Kathavarayan, 33, were charged with the murder of Sosilawati, 47, bank officer Noorhisham Mohamad, 38, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32, and Sosilawati’s driver Kamaruddin Shamsuddin, 44, at Lot 2001, Jalan Tanjong Layang, Tanjung Sepat, in Banting between 8.30pm and 9.45pm on Aug 30, 2010.

They were charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the same code, which provides for the mandatory death sentence upon conviction.

Deputy Public Prosecutors Ishak Mohd Yusoff, Saiful Edris Zainuddin and Idham Abd Ghani appeared for the prosecution while Pathmanabhan was represented by Counsel Manjeet Singh Dhillon and Pushpa Ratnam; Thilaiyalagan, by Gurbachan Singh; Matan, by Amer Hamzah Arshad and Kathavarayan, by Hasshahari Johari Mawi.

In his judgement, Judge Akhtar concluded that land matters figured as the key motive in the murder of Sosilawati.

He said he had mentioned during the prosecution’s case that a probable motive and reason to kill Sosilawati was the inability of the first accused, Pathmanabhan, to honour the cheque issued to Sosilawati.

However, after considering the testimony of Pathmanabhan, he found that there could be other more cogent reasons which were unwittingly spilled out by Pathmanabhan himself in his testimony, that is land matters, he said.

Akhtar said Pathmanabhan gave evidence on two land deals in which he was involved and had acted for two opposing sides on the same matter as well as having acquired an interest in the transactions and that these actions were not only unethical but had also compromised his impartiality.

He said Pathmanabhan had appeared for both Sosilawati and former Sementa state assemblyman Datuk Abdul Rahman Palil in the same deal and, by doing so, was caught between the ‘devil and the deep blue sea’.

“On one hand was Sosilawati, a well-known entrepreneur, and on the other was Rahman Palil, in the word of the first accused, a powerful politician.

In fact, it was the testimony of the first accused that he was reluctant to organise a meeting involving both of them when requested for such a meeting.

“When pushed to the corner, as what happened to the first accused in this case, he took the easy route of eliminating one of these persons and, unfortunately, it happened to be Sosilawati.

The rest of the persons accompanying Sosilawati were just at the wrong place at the wrong time,” he said in his 15-page written judgment.

Recapitulating the evidence in the prosecution’s case, Akhtar said the intended destination of Sosilawati around noon of Aug 30, 2010, as told to family members, was to meet Pathmanabhan for the purposes of bringing forward the payment of two cheques issued by the lawyer’s firm, and the prosecution then, through telecommunication records, charted the journey of Sosilawati and company to Banting where the final location of the journey, according to the records, was a farm which was later proved to belong to Pathmanabhan.

He said the prosecution further sought to prove that Sosilawati and company were in fact on the farm by introducing the evidence of a maid working at the farm, Siti Hamidah Karnax, (a prosecution witness) who saw a woman and three men entering the farm.

Akhtar said further evidence from the family members showed that Sosilawati and company had failed to return from Banting and were also not responding to phone calls.

He said that as it was not normal for Sosilawati and company not to inform family members of their whereabouts, the family members were concerned as to what had happened to them and this concern prompted them to lodge police reports. — Bernama

Judge Datuk Abdul Halim Aman made the ruling after finding that the prosecution had succeeded in proving a prima facie case against Muidin Maidin, 26, at the end of the prosecution case.

Muidin is charged with murdering Nurul Nadirah at an oil palm plantation at Jalan Suria 47, Bandar Seri Alam here between 11.30am on March 1, 2012 and midnight the following day.

The offence carries the mandatory death sentence upon conviction.

Nurul Nadirah was reported missing on March 1, 202 after going out to buy instant noodle and eggs at a grocery near her house at Flat Seri Delima, Bandar Seri Alam, before her charred remains was found on March 8.

On March 12, through DNA testing, the body was confirmed to that of Nurul Nadirah.

Muidin chose to testify from the dock.

Abdul Halim then set June 13 for the defence to question another witness, and June 14 for Muidin to enter his defence, which will be made from the dock.

Head of the Johor Prosecution Unit Umar Saifuddin Jaafar prosecuted.

He is assisted by Deputy Public Prosecutor Jasmee Hameeza Jaafar. Muidin is represented by lawyers Mohd Daud Ismail and Mohamad Abd Kadir. — Bernama

This follows the Court of Appeal’s decision yesterday which dismissed his appeal to strike out the charge.

A three-member panel chaired by Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali said there was no merit in the appeal.

“Allegation that the charge is against public policy is not grounded in evidence,” he said.

Justice Apandi ordered the trial to proceed expeditiously as he said it was a case of public interest.

The case has been fixed for mention at the Sessions Court in Shah Alam on June 10.

At the hearing of the appeal today, Rafizi’s counsel R Sivarasa submitted that the charge against his client should be thrown out on grounds it was against public policy.

He said the prosecution against Rafizi, 37, on the Bafia charge was oppressive and an abuse of court process, adding that the public prosecutor had bad intention in prosecuting him (Rafizi).

Justice Apandi told Sivarasa that the public prosecutor, who is also the Attorney-General, had been given wide discretionary powers under the Federal Constitution.

The judge said the court had inherent powers including under the Criminal Procedure Code to strike out the charges but it must be of rare and exceptional circumstances.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Nahra Dollah did not make any oral submission on the instruction of the panel which said that they had read the written submissions of both the prosecution’s and Rafizi’s.

Rafizi was charged in August last year with revealing four Public Bank customer-profile documents on the balance summaries of the NFC, National Meat and Livestock Sdn Bhd, Agroscience Industries Sdn Bhd and NFC chairman Datuk Seri Mohamad Salleh Ismail.

He allegedly disclosed the documents to media consultant Yusuf Abdul Alim and to The Star reporter Erle Martin Carvalho at Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s (PKR) headquarters at Merchant Square in Petaling Jaya on March 7 last year.

On Sept 10, last year, Rafizi, who is PKR director of strategy, filed an application to strike out the charge.

He lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal after his application was dismissed by the High Court on Nov 23, last year.

Sivarasa told reporters that an appeal would be filed to the Federal Court. — Bernama

Judicial Commissioner Leng Heng Cheong made the decision in chambers in the presence of Counsel Abu Bakar Isa Rahmat, representing Felda, and Counsel Puspawati Rosman and Azhana Mohd Khairuddin, who represented Saifuddin and the six other defendants respectively.

Abu Bakar told reporters the court had set seven days before May 29 for Saifuddin to file his statement of defence while Felda was given till June 7 to submit its affidavit-in-reply.

Felda had applied for the judgment-in-default on April 5 after Saifuddin failed to file his memorandum on his presence in court concerning the suit whereas the others had done so and filed their statements of defence as well.

On Jan 7, Felda had filed the defamation suit against the respondents for alleging that Felda was exporting palm oil to Israel.

The others named as defendants in the suit were Persatuan Anak Peneroka Felda Kebangsaan (Anak) president Mazlan Aliman; PAS secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Ali; Harakah editor-in-chief Ahmad Lutfi Othman, editor Taufek Yahya, article writer Mohd Arif Atan and printer Harakah Angkatan Edaran Ent Sdn Bhd.

The conglomerate claimed that the words to the effect uttered by the defendants verbally or in print had tarnished its reputation and is seeking general, special, aggravated and exemplary damages, interests and costs from all of them.

In their statement of defence, the six defendants mentioned claimed that Felda had no right form the legal point of view to sue them and that they had qualified privilege to make the accusation because it was of public interest. — Bernama

Adam Adli, 25, pleaded not guilty to the charge of having uttered seditious words to incite the people to unlawfully change a legitimately elected government.

He was charged with committing the offence at a ‘ceramah’ (talk) at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall at No.1, Jalan Maharajalela, Dang Wangi, between 8.55 pm and 11.15pm on May 13.

The charge, under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 and punishable under Section 4(1) of the same act, provides for a maximum fine of RM5,000 or imprisonment of up to five years upon conviction.

Judge Norsharidah Awang set bail at RM5,000 with one surety and fixed July 2 for mention. Adam Adli’s father, Abd Halim Abd Hamid, posted bail.

During the proceeding, Adam Adli, without handcuffs, was in the dock.

Several opposition leaders were also seen in court, among them Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas, in asking the court to set bail at the outset of the proceeding, proposed bail of RM5,000 with one surety.

However, defence counsel N Surendran requested that his client be released on a personal bond because he had cooperated well with the police during the entire investigation in the case.

Surendran also said that the charge faced by his client had no merit and was baseless because the Sedition Act 1948 would be repealed.

“It is not fair to the accused because there was no element of violence which could have been detrimental to the public. The likelihood of the prosecution winning the case is slim,” he said.

Surendran informed the court that the defence would apply to the High Court to quash the charge on the grounds of abuse of court authority.

Mohamad Abazafree said the Sedition Act was still in force.

He said that though there was no element of violence, there was the element of invitation to violence and that this was unlawful.

“The bail is to ensure that the accused attends court,” he said.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Azlina Rasdi also appeared for the prosecution while lawyer Datuk S Ambiga was also in the defence team. — Bernama

Mohamad Salleh, 65, said this was because Shamsubahrin used former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s name and he (Shamsubahrin) also had close ties with the police.

“We were indeed desperate (for the service of a consultant). So, we regarded a person sent by Tun Dr Mahathir is a person of good character and can help the company, and also the family,” he said during examination-in-chief by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) head of the prosecution unit, Datuk Abdul Razak Musa.

Mohamad Salleh, who is the 42nd prosecution witness, said he did not take drastic action against Shamsubahrin despite realising that he had been cheated because there was no proof to say that he (Shamsubahrin) was not a consultant.

However, he said NFC appointed another consultant after Shamsubahrin failed to do his job, despite payment having been made to him.

Mohamad Salleh was testifying at the trial of Shamsubahrin, who is facing 17 counts of money laundering, amounting to RM1.755 million, under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.

Shamsubahrin, 46, is also facing five charges under Section 420 of the Penal Code, of cheating Mohamad Salleh into agreeing to pay him (Shamsubahrin) a fee for the same sum last year, in return for advisory and consulting services.

Meanwhile, 43rd witness, MACC Assistant Superintendent Mohd Shaufi Shaharuddin told the court that he recorded Dr Mahathir’s statement on the claim by Shamsubahrin that the former prime minister had asked him to help Mohamad Salleh.

“However, he (Dr Mahathir) denied the claim,” he added.

Mohd Shaufi, 28, also said that based on his investigations, it would be more apt to charge Shamsubahrin under Section 420 of the Penal Code, because the accused had cheated Mohd Salleh by telling him that the money which he received was to pay the police and the deputy public prosecutor.

“Apart from that, the accused also cheated Mohamad Salleh by bringing in several individuals in the consultancy team when they (the individuals concerned) know nothing about it,” he added.

The hearing before judge Rozilah Salleh continues on June 28. — Bernama

Hendi Melo, 24, appeared before Sessions Court Judge Dayang Ellyn Narisa Abang Ahmad who fixed the trial hearing dates on Aug 2, 7, 26 and 27 while the pre-trial case management is on June 25.

The judge ordered that the pre-trial case be conducted as soon as the accused has obtained legal representation or engaged a defence counsel.

Hendi pleaded not guilty to causing the death of Rian Abbas at a workers’ hostel in Serian at about 5pm on Feb 11 this year.

He was charged under Section 304 (a) of the Penal Code, under which he will face a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.

Commissioner of Police (CP) for Sabah Datuk Hamza Taib said the police had talked to the intruders and obtained their feedback that it was not about the RCI.

“We (police) have established why they landed in Lahad Datu. The RCI was not a reason for the intrusion,” he said when replying to RCI panel member, Universiti Malaysia Sabah former vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Seri Dr Kamaruzaman Ampon.

Hamza said the intrusion was an example of how the flood of illegal immigrants in Sabah could threaten the security of the state, because those involved had the support of their countrymen who had families or friends living in Sabah.

Responding to RCI panel member, former police chief of Kuala Lumpur Datuk Henry Chin Poy Wu, he said the security threat not only came from foreigners but also local residents.

“The intruders could enter the country because they had the support of local residents but those involved were not many,” he said, responding to another panel member, former Sabah deputy chief minister and ex-Sabah Attorney General Tan Sri Herman J Luping.

Hamza, who was appointed as Sabah CP in 2010, also denied that the intruders were able to enter the state because they possessed identity cards.

“I was involved in the Lahad Datu intrusion offensive since the early stage. I am 100 per cent confident that the intruders were Suluk who were illegals; they did not have any identity cards,” he said, adding that the culprits were detained under the Security Offences Act (Special Measures Act) 2012 and had also been charged in court.

To a question from counsel Datuk John Sikayun who is holding a watching brief for the Sabah Law Association, Hamza said he could not say whether the intrusion would happen again.

However, he said the establishment of the ESSCOM to safeguard the security and wellbeing of the people in Sabah would potentially prevent illegal entry by foreigners.

To a question by conducting officer Manoj Kurup, Hamza said the Crime Index involving foreigners in Sabah was less than 30 per cent from 2000 until 2011 and that the remaining percentage involved local residents.

Hamza also disagreed with Manoj’s suggestion that the percentage of crimes committed by foreigners and the local people were at 50-50.

“For example from January until December 2000, of the 1,258 arrests, only 151 involved Filipinos, 153 involved Indonesians and the remaining 934, local people,” he said.

Asked by RCI chairman, former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kiong on whether the police had sufficient logistics and manpower to combat crimes committed by illegal immigrants, Hamzah said they were presently adequate. — Bernama

This means that lawyers representing the Terengganu, Selangor, Kedah, Malacca, Wilayah Persekutuan and Johor councils and the Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association can participate and make submissions at the hearing of the government’s appeal.

The government and Home Ministry are appealing against a High Court’s decision in 2009 to allow the Roman Catholic Church’s judicial review to lift the Home Ministry’s ban on the use of the word ‘Allah’ in its weekly paper, to refer to the Christian God.

The decision to allow the seven organisations to be made opposing parties in the Church’s judicial review came about following a consent agreement reached by the church, the councils, the association and the government.

A three-member Court of Appeal panel led by Justice Datuk Seri Abu Samah Nordin recorded the consent agreement yesterday.

Justices Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi and Datuk Rohana Yusuf were the other two judges on the panel.

Lawyer Mubashir Mansor representing the Terengganu Islamic Religious Council earlier informed the court that parties in the case had reached an agreement on five terms as set out in the consent order with respect to the councils’ appeal seeking to intervene in the matter.

Among the terms was to allow the councils and association to be made parties.

The other term was to set aside the High Court decision on Dec 31, 2009 which dismissed their application to be made parties in the judicial review.

Another term was that the councils and the association be deemed to have been a party to the judicial review proceedings in the High Court.

Lawyer Porres Royan, representing the church, confirmed that they had reached a consent agreement.

On May 8, this year, the same Court of Appeal panel questioned the propriety of the procedure adopted by the High Court to simultaneously hear the church’s judicial review and the councils’ intervener applications and ordered the parties in the case to submit on that issue.

The panel had said if there was an irregularity in the High Court’s procedure, the case could be remitted back to the High Court for a retrial.

Yesterday, upon reaching the consent agreement, Mubashir also told the panel that all parties agreed that there was no irregularity in the procedure.

In her ruling on Dec 31, 2009, High Court judge Lau Bee Lan, declared the decision by the Home Minister prohibiting Herald publications from using the word ‘Allah’ in its Bahasa Malaysia publication which was specially to cater to the people in Sabah and Sarawak, was illegal, null and void.

The suit was filed by the Catholic Church led by Archbishop Murphy Pakiam on Feb 16, 2010, naming the Home Ministry and the government as respondents in the judicial review application.

They sought, among others, a declaration that the decision by the ministry on Jan 7, 2009, prohibiting the use of the word, ‘Allah’, in the Herald — the Catholic Weekly publication — was illegal and that the word, ‘Allah’, was not exclusive to the religion of Islam.

The weekly, published in four languages, has been using the word ‘Allah’ as a translation for God in its Malay-language section, but the government argued that ‘Allah’ should be used exclusively by Muslims.

The government’s appeal is scheduled for case management on May 30.

It (the government) was represented by senior federal counsel Arik Sanusi Yeop Johari. — Bernama

Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir said he was satisfied that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case against former lawyer N. Pathmanabhan and his three farm workers, T. Thilaiyalagan, R. Matan and R. Kathavarayan.

Pathmanabhan, 43, Thilaiyalagan, 21, Matan, 22, and Kathavarayan, 33, were charged with the murder of Sosilawati, 47, bank officer Noorhisham Mohamad, 38, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32, and Sosilawati’s driver Kamaruddin Shamsuddin, 44, at Lot 2001, Jalan Tanjong Layang, Tanjung Sepat, in Banting between 8.30 pm and 9.45 pm on Aug 30, 2010.

They were charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the same code, which provides for the mandatory death sentence upon conviction.

Deputy Public Prosecutors Ishak Mohd Yusoff, Saiful Edris Zainuddin and Idham Abd Ghani appeared for the prosecution while Pathmanabhan was represented by counsel Manjeet Singh Dhillon and Pushpa Ratnam; Thilaiyalagan, by Gurbachan Singh; Matan, by Amer Hamzah Arshad and Kathavarayan, by Hasshahari Johari Mawi. — BERNAMA

Joy Felix, 20, who appeared before Justice Chew Soo Ho allegedly murdered the 42-year-old man in Kampung Padas Valley, Beaufort at 10am on March 14, 2012.

The charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code carries a mandatory death sentence upon conviction.

Earlier, in his opening remarks, deputy public prosecutor Afzan Abd Kahar told the court that the prosecution would adduce evidence through Nikli Felix @ Mohd Shamsuddin Faizal, Mazlan Anong and Bonjovi Mahmud that they were together with the deceased and the accused on that day until the deceased was strangled by Joy.

She said on March 14, 2012, one Lee Yong Chong lodged a police report regarding his missing son-in-law (the deceased).

The complainant had reported that the deceased went out to work on his taxi bearing registration number SAA 1127 G but could not be contacted up to the time the report was made.

The police then initiated an investigation based on the report that was initially classified as a missing person report.

Before that on March 13, 2012, the accused masterminded a plan to steal a taxi in Sipitang town with Nikli, Mazlan and Bonjovi. On the next morning, they went to Sipitang Town to execute their plan. They brought along some weapons and managed to hire the taxi driven by the victim, asking the latter to send them to Beaufort.

Afzan said when the taxi reached the junction to Ladang Kelapa Sawit Padas Valley, Nikli asked the victim to take the junction and stop thereafter, saying they had reached their location.

The victim stopped the taxi and got off to unload their luggage from the boot, but Nikli suddenly brandished a knife, grabbed the victim by his neck and threatened him.

The accused used a rope to tie the victim’s hands and forced him to sit behind the driver’s seat while the accused and Mazlan punched the victim, and Mazlan took RM202 from the victim’s wallet.

While Nikli was driving the taxi to Beaufort, the victim cried for help and tried to retaliate, prompting the accused to use a seat belt to strangle him for almost half an hour.

Later, the accused found that the victim was no longer moving. He checked the victim’s pulse and found that he had died.

Afzan said Nikli then stopped the taxi to move the body into the car boot before burying it at Pantai Sawangan, and driving off.

Nikli and Mazlan were arrested in the victim’s taxi on March 15, 2012 in Sipitang.

Based on information given by the two, the accused and Bonjovi were later arrested and the victim’s body was discovered on March 17, 2012 with Mazlan’s information.

The pathologist who conducted a post-mortem on the body confirmed the cause of death to be asphyxia.

Afzan said the prosecution would adduce direct and circumstantial evidence to prove that the deceased had died and his death was caused by the accused by way of strangulation. The injuries caused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

On April 9 this year, Nikli and Mazlan were sentenced to 18 years’ jail and six strokes of the cane while Bonjovi was jailed for 15 years and ordered to be whipped thrice after they pleaded guilty to their joint charge of robbing him.

The offence was framed under Section 396 of the Penal Code, read together with Section 34 of the same code which is punishable by the death sentence or a jail term of up to 30 years and also liable to whipping, upon conviction.

SPIDERMAN CAUGHT: The suspect escorted by police to the lockup.

KUCHING: A man’s Spiderman-like ability saw him scale barefooted to the roof of a shop house at Jalan Petanak here in a suspected break-in attempt before he was nabbed by police.

The incident was discovered around 2am when members of the public caught sight of the man lithely scaling to the top of a premises from the rear and immediately contacted the police.

Police patrol vehicles arrived at the scene within minutes and surrounded the shop house before calling on the suspect to surrender himself.

Heeding the advice, the man soon appeared at the edge of the roof and, just as he did earlier, made his way down with considerable ease despite being barefooted and was nabbed on the spot.

The suspect, who was later detained in lock-up, refused to say what he was doing on the roof although many believed he might have been attempting to break into the premises.

In an unrelated case, a teenager was arrested for attempting to steal a motorcycle at the Kota Sentosa Bazaar yesterday morning.

The suspect from Mile 10 Landeh, who only turned 16 a day earlier, was spotted tampering with the ignition slot of a motorcycle by the owner of the machine, who immediately alerted the police.

The swift arrival of a patrol car enabled police to arrest the teen before he was able to ride off with the bike, and he was subsequently held in lock-up pending further investigation.

Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria said scrutiny of the court’s grounds of judgment revealed that not all the submissions made by the liquidators’ counsel were adopted by the court.

He said out of the 189 paragraphs of the submissions, only 70 paragraphs were adopted by the court.

“And in so doing, the court inserted their own words in parts of the judgment.

“All these could not be done without the learned judges in fact applying their minds to the issues raised in the appeal,” said Arifin in a judgment delivered today.

The five-member Federal Court panel led by Arifin had dismissed an application brought by former Kian Joo Can Factory Bhd (KJCF) group managing director Datuk See Teow Chuan and 24 others to have the judgment of an earlier Federal Court panel reviewed alleging plagiarism in a Federal Court written judgment.

Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Tan Sri Abdull Hamid Embong and Datuk Zainun Ali were the other judges on the panel. The panel also awarded RM200,000 and RM150,000 in legal costs to the liquidators and Can-One International Sdn Bhd respectively.

See and 13 others who are the majority contributories of Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd (KJH) and another 11 persons who are of the minority contributories of KJH, have sought the Federal Court to review its earlier judgment which was not in favour of them, alleging that the earlier judgment was copied “lock, stock and barrel” from a written submission.

The earlier three-member Federal Court panel led by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin had on Jan 5, last year, allowed the appeal of the liquidators of KJH, Ooi Woon Chee and Ng Kim Tuck to proceed with the sale of 146.13 million of Kian Joo shares held by KJH to Can-One International Sdn Bhd for RM241.12 million.

KJH is a family investment holding company which was ordered by a High Court to be wound up in 1996. Ooi Woon Chee and Ng Kim Tuck were appointed as liquidators of KJH.

Can-One won the tender to purchase the 32.9 per cent stake in KJCF thereby prompting the applicants to bring the matter to the court in a bid to stop Can-One from acquiring the shares.

In his 37-page judgment, Arifin said there had been due process as the case had gone through the full appeal process before the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court and that both the grounds of the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments were before the Federal Court.

Arifin said the 25 applicants were also given full liberty to make their oral submissions at the hearing before the Federal Court which was stretched over a period of two days, adding that written submissions were also filed.

“In fairness to the panel (three-member Federal Court panel), we have to assume that they must have considered the judgments of the courts below and the submissions of the parties, both oral and written, before arriving at their decision,’ he said.

The judiciary’s top judge (Arifin) said the adoption of counsel’s submissions as the court’s ground of judgment in itself was not a sufficient ground for the Federal Court to set aside its earlier judgment. — Bernama

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said the case was still ongoing and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had not dropped the matter.

“I have no choice but to state my stand today.

“Normally, we do not state our stand until completion of the full investigation.

“In this case, you force us to go against certain principles and I do not have a choice…I think this thing has got to end, once and for all.

“It is not a simple case. Please understand us and let us finish our investigation. Have trust in us to complete our job.

“I can tell you this, we do not tolerate any kind of child rape but at the same time, we have got to ensure that justice is done,” he told reporters here yesterday, Abdul Gani said since the victim had refused to give evidence, the prosecution team had to rely on other evidence such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) report, report from the social welfare department and investigating officer, as well as a check on their Facebook account, which had yet to be received.

“In this matter, I have a witness who is a friend of the underaged girl, whereby, she (friend) sat in the rear of the car.

“However, what was seen while seated behind is another issue.

“But I do believe in the child, so we need further evidence from her to really analyse the evidence,” he said.

Riduan Masmud, a father of four, was charged on Feb 28 for allegedly raping the girl inside a car parked by the roadside in Inanam, Sabah about 10am on Feb 18.

He later declared that he had married the girl in the midst of the case.

Sessions Court Judge Ummu Khatom Abd Samad gave the AGC until June 6 to decide on whether to proceed with the case. — Bernama

Judge Datuk Abdul Alim Abdullah allowed the prosecution’s appeal against the decision of the Petaling Jaya Magistrates Court which had acquitted them in June 2012.

Abdul Alim said it was impossible for all the urine samples of the four accused to have been tested on June 12 2011 but labeled Sept 12 2011.

Furthermore, the gaps in the prosecution case had explanations and all the accused tested positive for drugs, he added.

“The court upholds justice, so I’m setting aside the Magistrate’s decision and ordering all the respondents to enter their defence at the same Magistrates Court,” he said.

The judge set Monday for the Petaling Jaya Magistrates Court case mention and released them on a RM2,000 bail with one surety each.

On June 25 2012, Magistrate Ahmad Solihin Abd Wahid had discharged Saiful Apek, 43, (actual name Mohd Saifulazam Mohamed Yusoff), Shah Zainatull Ehsan Al-Muazam Shah Yahya, 28, Shaiful Baharom, 24, and Noremy Mohamad, 28, who worked in Gitu-Gitu Production, Saiful Apek’s production company, saying the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against them.

They were charged under Section 15(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act which carries a maximum imprisonment of two years or RM5,000 fine, upon conviction.

Deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Ishrakh Saad appeared for the prosecution while the accused were represented by lawyer Mohd Fadly Hashim. — Bernama

Lawyer David Methew, who represented all the applicants, told reporters that Judge Datuk Seri Zakaria Sam made the decision in chambers following the absence of an objection from the Attorney-General’s Office.

On April 30, Malaysian Association of Colleges and Universities, National Association Of Private Educational Institutions, Berjaya University College Of Hospitality and 52 others filed for the judicial review naming the PIHL chief registrar and Higher Education Minister as respondents.

They applied for an order to quash a circular dated January 23 2012 which set additional conditions for the registration of international students.

In their affidavit of support, the applicants claimed that all the private institutions were required to use the Student Applications and Registration System (STARS) operated by Educational Malaysia Global Services (EMGS).

Based on the circular, they said the private institutions would incur a processing fee of RM1,000, RM250 medical examination fee and medical insurance policy from EGMS panel of insurers.

The applicants claimed that the circular was ultra vires as it charged an illegal levy in the form of the RM1,000 processing fee and created a monopoly by EMGS. — Bernama

Dansun (right) with his counsel Ram Singh after the proceedings yesterday.

KOTA KINABALU: The Magistrate’s Court here yesterday set June 12 this year to make a ruling on whether the prosecution had established a case against a fuel tanker driver, who was charged with two counts of negligence for causing danger to the lives of train passengers and causing them to suffer grievous hurt.

Magistrate Cindy Mc Juce Balitus set the date for the court’s ruling on Pauleh Dansun, 43, whose fuel tanker was involved in a collision with a train at Jalan Kepayan on October 31, 2011, after the prosecution had called 25 witnesses and closed its case yesterday.

On the first count, he was charged for having negligently caused hurt by an act which endangered the lives of the train passengers, namely, to Asneh Papang, Norfaisma Ismail, Norafidah Jalani, Joseph Kulip, Bibiana Mojulat and Sapiah Masri aged between 64 and 20, on Oct 31, 2011 between 5.30pm and 5.45pm in front of a fuel station at Km 8, Jalan Kepayan.

Dansun, who hails from Kampung Togung, Menggatal, was charged under Section 337 of the Penal Code which provides for a maximum six months’ jail or a fine, or both, upon conviction.

He also faced a second charge of having negligently caused grievous hurt by an act which endangered the lives of the train passengers, namely, to Rahmah Rahmat, 48, and Rauziah Ramli, 38, during the collision between the fuel tanker and the train at the same time and place.

The second charge against Dansun was framed under Section 338 of the Penal Code which carries a jail term of up to two years or a fine, or both, upon conviction.

The accused, who was defended by counsel Ram Singh, is currently released on RM4,000 bail for the two charges with two local sureties, pending disposal of his case.

Deputy public prosecutor Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin prosecuted while Nicholas Chong held a watching brief for Shell (oil company) while Ian Vun and DK Noranisah are the watching brief counsels for Kurnia Insurance.

Meanwhile, in a separate case, two local men were each fined RM1,500, in default, 45 days’ jail by the Traffic Court here for separate charges of driving their vehicles while under the influence of alcohol.

Magistrate Nuruhuda Mohd Yusof convicted Marcos Doisey, 27, and Eddie John Raymond, 30, after they pleaded guilty to each of their charges framed under Section 45A (1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 which carries a maximum fine of RM6,000 or with a jail term of up to 12 months, upon conviction.

Traffic prosecuting officer Inspector Hanif Mamyudi told the court that the duo were arrested during separate operations at Jalan Ketiau Tombovo and Jalan Kota Kinabalu repectively between March 20, 2010 and March 3 this year.

Judge Ravinthran N. Paramaguru fixed the date to deliver his decision on the suit filed by Marcel Jude A/L M S Joseph, 51, naming Sabah State Legislative Assembly as the sole defendant on April 20, 2012.

He is seeking a declaration that the de-gazzetting and abolition by the defendant of the day following Good Friday, Easter Monday and Christmas Day as public holidays are unlawful and ultra vires Article 11 of the Federal Constitution and the Holidays Ordinance of Sabah.

Joseph also wants any other relief deemed fit by the court and costs.

In his statement of claim, Joseph said that in the State of Sabah, before 1978, the Christian community enjoyed three public holidays for Easter and two public holidays for Christmas.

Then, in 1978, that was abolished to only one public holiday for Easter (that is, Good Friday) and one public holiday for Christmas.

After 1978, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday as well as Boxing Day were no longer public holidays and this was because of amendments made to the Holidays Ordinance of Sabah by the defendant as constituted in 1978 or thereabouts.

He said before 1978, it was stipulated under the Holidays Ordinance that for Easter and Christmas, these were inter alia the gazetted public holidays; Good Friday, and the following day; Easter Monday and Christmas Day, and the following day.

Senior State Counsel Nor Aisah Mohd Yusof represented State Attorney-General of Chambers.