SAITO SECURITY ACADEMY

BACHELOR OF ARTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

(INVESTIGATION) (HONS)
SEMESTER : DEC’ 2022 – MARCH’2023

SUBJECT : CRIMINAL LAW

SUBJECT CODE : LEI 6124
DUE DATE : 5/3/2023

NAME : LOGHESWAREN A/L SELVARAJOO

20220733-01-27142 (BLEIPACEA36)

FINAL ASSESSMENT
This Assessment carries 40% of the total grading marks

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES:

1) This question set consists of TWO (2) sections, Section A and Section B.

2) Answer ALL questions.

3) All questions must be answered in English.

4) SOFTCOPY of your answer must be submitted via email on 5/3/2023

by 5.00 p.m to : saslina2019@gmail.com
5) SOFT COPY of your answer must be submitted in the following format:
(a) Cover page is compulsory
(b) Font : Times New Roman, Size 12, Spacing : 1.5, Justify
(c) Insert page number at the bottom right corner.
PREPARED BY : DR. SASLINA KAMARUDDIN
SECTION A [ 20 MARKS ]

Instruction :
Answer ALL questions in this section.

1. Roy is a cook and owns a restaurant. One day, he decided to take part in the “Chief
Chef of Asia Competition” held in Kuala Lumpur. Chef from all over Asia took part
in that competition. During the semi-final round, Roy was asked to cook a whole
chicken, and his dish turned out well. Unfortunately, Chef Alan, the judge during the
taste test, commented that Roy’s dish was tasteless and that he was not qualified to
participate in the competition. Upon hearing this, Roy got so angry. He immediately
took the knife near him, jumped on Chef Alan and attacked him. During the attack,
Chef Alan was stabbed in his right hand. Chef Alan bled profusely and rushed to the
hospital immediately. The attack caused Chef Alan to suffer a neck fracture that led to
permanent paralysis of his right hand.

(i) Following the incident, Roy was arrested. His family has appointed you as his
legal counsel. With reference to the Penal Code, advise Roy on his criminal
liability.
[ 10 Marks ]

According to Act 574 Criminal Code Section 324, It is a crime to employ hazardous weapons
or techniques to deliberately cause injury. Unless specifically exempted by section 334,
anyone who intentionally injures another person by using a weapon capable of stabbing,
shooting, or cutting, a weapon capable of causing death when used as a weapon of crime, a
scheduled weapon as defined by the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive
Weapons Act 1958, fire, heated materials, poison, corrosive substances, or explosive
substances is guilty of a crime. The police may make arrests for this crime without a warrant
and conduct investigations into connected criminal offences without first obtaining an Order
To Investigate (OTI) from the Public Prosecutor. The officers have 24 hours to complete their
investigation. If the investigation cannot be completed in the given 24 hours, the police may
request that Roy, the suspect, be held in custody under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure
Code (CPC). Notwithstanding Roy's request to the magistrate that he not enter a guilty plea,
he will be detained in custody until the next mention and/or trial unless I, as his attorney,
submit a bail application. Bond is offered to persons in police custody for both bailable and

1
non-bailable offences. (1) Any person accused of a non-bailable crime who is arrested or
detained by a police officer without a warrant, or who appears or is brought before a court,
may be released on bail by the officer in charge of the police district or by that court. Yet, he
will not be released if there are reasonable grounds to suspect he committed a non-bailable
offence punishable by death or life imprisonment. Any accused individual under the age of
16, any woman, or any person who is ill or infirm may be required to post bail at the
discretion of the court. If Roy commits an offence for which bail may be granted, I will be
able to present to the court any mitigating circumstances that may warrant Roy's release from
police custody in exchange for payment of the required security deposit. If the Court accepts
my arguments, bail will be granted, and a bailor will be allowed to free Roy from prison. The
bailor will be requested to provide cash as a guarantee by the court. This money must be
properly deposited before Roy may be released.

ii) Based on the facts above, what are the Actus Reus and Mens Rea that need to be
established by the prosecution to prove guilt of Roy

The Mens Rea that the prosecution must demonstrate in order to show Roy's guilt is Oblique
intention may be defined as either certainty foresight or probability foresight. When an
incident is a natural result of a deliberate act and a person foresees it, they have oblique
purpose. Under the criminal law, there are two types of foresight: certainty foresight and
probability foresight. The act constitutes murder if it is done with the goal of inflicting such
physical damage that the offender knows is likely to cause the death of the person to whom
the harm is inflicted, according to Section300(b) of the PC. Section 300(c) of the criminal
code states that it is a crime if it is done with the aim of inflicting bodily harm to any person
and the bodily harm intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the regular course of nature to
cause death. Even if the person did not want to kill the person, but rather to damage others, it
is said that he has foresight of certainty, which will lead to murder since he is aware that his
actions may kill the person. Furthermore, S300(d) of the PC states that foresight of
probability exists if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous
that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as
aforesaid. To summarise, oblique intention does not include the desire to murder the person,
but it must include the intent to hurt the person or the conduct has a significant danger of
causing the death of someone.

2
SECTION B [ 40 MARKS ]

Instructions:
1. This section contains TWO (2) essay question.
2. The word count of your essay must be within 1,500-3000 words, excluding
footnotes.
3. You may provide examples of decided cases and/or statistics in your essay.
4. All references must be cited using footnotes.
5. PLAGIARISM IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

QUESTION 1:
"Clearly, under section 405 of the Penal Code, the very first ingredient which the prosecution
must prove is that the (sic) accused was either entrusted with the property the subject of the
charge or was entrusted with dominion over that property.

In the case of entrustment of dominion over that property, the mere existence of that person's
dominion over property is not enough.

The prosecution must go further and show beyond reasonable doubt that his dominion was
the result of entrustment..." Per Edgar Joseph Jr. SCJ in Public Prosecutor v Lawrence Tan
Hui Seng (1993) 4 CLJ 22.

With reference to the above statement and decided cases, analyse the ingredients of criminal
breach of trust within section 405 of the Penal Code.
[ 25 Marks]
As defined by Section 405 of the Penal Code, "criminal breach of trust" occurs when a
person who has been dishonestly entrusted with property or with any dominion over
property, either solely or jointly with any other person, misappropriates, or converts to his
own use, that property; or when that person dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in
violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract A person is responsible for breach of trust if he fails to
execute his obligations, whether by failing to do any act which he ought to do or by
performing an act which he ought not to do. A person may also be held accountable for

3
breach of trust if they undertake an act which they ought not to do. Such responsibilities
may be outlined in the trust deed by the settlor, as in the case of the obligation to disburse
both income and principal, or they can be mandated statutorily in conformity with the
provisions of trust law (e.g. duties of care and impartiality). A violation of trust may be
caused by anything from the dishonest sale of trust property to the careless neglect of
obligations that results in the investment of trust funds in activities that are not authorised.
It is the responsibility of the beneficiary to demonstrate that there is a direct or indirect link
between the breach of trust and the loss that was incurred by the trust, either directly or
indirectly. In point of fact, even if the person who filed the complaint does not incur any
losses, the beneficiary has the legal right to file a claim for any profits made by the
appellant as a direct consequence of the breach.
The notion of returning to the trust estate damages related with trust assets and monies that
the trustees wrongly handled with in violation of trust is the foundation for appellant
culpability for breach of trust. This obligation is founded on the fact that the trustees acted
in breach of trust. It is needed that the trust be fully reimbursed for any harm caused by his
violation of the terms of the trust. The scope of this responsibility is not constrained by the
generally accepted criteria that govern the remoteness of injury in cases involving acts in
tort or breach of contract. Section 405 of the Criminal Code defines criminal breach of
trust as occurring when a person is entrusted in any manner over property or dominion
over property and that person dishonestly converts the property to his own use, dishonestly
uses or disposes of the property in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract,
or wilfully suffers any other person to do any of these things. If he does any of these
things, he has committed criminal breach of trust.
Before we can determine whether A is liable for the crime, we need to determine if the
conduct in question fits the definition of the crime. There are three components that have
to be accomplished. First and foremost, the accused person must have some degree of
control or jurisdiction over the property. The second need is that the individual must have
dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property to his own use, or dishonestly used
or disposed of the property, or willfully allowed another individual to engage in these
activities. Last but not least, dishonestly disposes of the property in a manner that is
contrary to any lawful directive or contractual obligation. The elements of criminal breach
of trust are as follows: (a) the accused entrusted or have dominion to a property; (b) the
accused dishonestly misappropriated the property; (c) the accused wilfully suffered
another person to do so; and (d) the accused used or disposed of the property in violation

4
of a direction of law or used or disposed of the property in violation of a legal contract.
First and foremost, the person who is being charged has to have some kind of control or
authority over the property in question. This might be in the form of an entrustment or a
dominion. To put one's confidence in another individual to take care of something is the
essence of what it means to entrust. Entrustment was defined in the case of Jaswantlal v.
State as the transfer of ownership of a property from one person to another while
maintaining the original owner's status as the legal holder of the property. In the case of
Bahru Zaman Bin Ali v. PP, the accused was a clerk at the parcel office who had collected
fifty cents for a ticket but had not been issued a receipt for the transaction. The judge ruled
that since he was an employee, his employer had given him permission to accept the
money in question.
The accused person was a manager at a bank who had cleared a check for an overdraft
facility, despite the fact that he did not have the authority to do so. The judge ruled that
even though there was no entrustment, the accused nonetheless had dominion over the
situation since he was the manager of the bank and was accountable for the money that
was distributed.
Second, this conduct constitutes dishonest misappropriation or the conversion of the
property to his own personal use, both of which are illegal. Misappropriation, as defined
by the case Sohan Lal v. Emperor, is the act of assigning something to the wrong person or
using it for the wrong purpose, and this conduct must be done dishonestly. Under sections
24 and 23, dishonesty is defined as acting with the goal of causing another person to make
an unlawful profit or suffer an unlawful loss.
In the end, there must have been dishonestly disposed of the property in violation of any
law or any legal contract. A person is considered dishonest if they do anything with the
goal of causing unjust gain to another person or wrongful loss to another person. This
definition can be found in section 24, which states that dishonesty is defined as anybody
who does anything with this intention. The court ruled that the accused was responsible for
paying CBT in the matter of Mohd Adil v. PP because the accused, in his capacity as
headmaster of a school, had withdrawn money from the salaries of instructors in order to
contribute to a society fund. However, no payment was ever made to the fund. This
circumstance was brought to light in the case of Murni bin Haji Mohamed Taha v. PP, in
which the accused had carried out his responsibilities in a manner that was in violation of
the State Financial Rules.
As a conclusion, given that A had satisfied all of the requirements for the offence of

5
 criminal breach of trust, it is possible that he may be found accountable for the crime under
section 405 of the penal code, and it is possible that he could be punished under section
406 of the same code.

QUESTION 2:
Robbery is committed where the accused has committed theft or extortion and has used,
attempted to use, or threatened to use violence to commit the offence.

With reference to the above statement, analyse the ingredients of robbery, armed robbery,
and extortion within the context of the Penal Code. Support your answer with relevant
authorities.

Stealing is the theft of goods from others without the use of force or the fear of violence,
while robbery is the reverse. It is likewise an act of stealing from others, but the criminal
uses force or the threat of violence to do this. It is also possible to assert that the individual
committing stealing wishes to remain quiet and unknown while doing so. As a result,
robbery is more visible since the individual carries a firearm as a threat. Extortion is
defined as a threat or compulsion made by the extorter to force the person provide what he
wants, when the threat does not endanger the person extorted. Unlike robbery, the threat
must endanger that individual.
The first component is the purpose to take dishonestly, which is To begin with, there must
be the purpose to steal dishonestly. According to Section 24, whomever does something
with the goal of creating wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person,
regardless of whether the conduct creates real wrongful loss or gain, is said to behave
dishonestly. Since purpose cannot be determined via direct evidence, it must be inferred by
behaviour or indirect evidence. The dishonest aim, according to Section 23, is to create
unlawful gain or loss. So, he is not acting dishonestly if his aim is not to produce any
unlawful benefit or damage. Section 378 defines the offence of stealing. The element of
dishonest intent to take may be shown in Section 378 example (a), where A chops down a
tree on Z's property with the goal of dishonestly removing the tree out of Z's possession
without Z's permission. A has committed theft as soon as he has cut the tree in order to take
it. This differs from the stance in Malaysia, where the act of stealing another's property as

6
security for a debt is considered theft. Similarly in the case of PP v Ramiah, the accused's
defence is that the complainant owed one of them money and that they believed the
complainant would pay the bill if they stole the trunk. This defence was offered after they
were accused with housebreaking and theft for stealing a trunk from the complainant's
possession. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal found them guilty of the accusation.
The second need is that the property be mobile. Movable property is defined in Section 22
which said that 'Movable property' comprises corporeal property (tangible property) of
every sort, save land and anything fixed to the ground, or permanently fastened to anything
which is attached to the earth. Corporeal refers to a quality that consists of or is in the form
of a material item. Something perceptible to the senses. It must be solid and separate from
the earth. Explanation 1 to Section 378 further states that an item is not the topic of theft as
long as it is connected to the ground and is not moveable property, but it becomes the
subject of theft as soon as it is detached from the earth. This is also mentioned in Section
378 example (a), where A chops down a tree on Z's property with the goal of dishonestly
removing the tree out of Z's possession without Z's permission. A has committed theft as
soon as he has cut the tree in order to take it. Hence, as long as the tree is linked to the
ground and is not a moveable item, it may be stolen as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Currency notes and checks, in general, have movable features. But, in Che Man Che Mud
v. PP, both the check and the cash notes were deemed immovable property, and the
accused was judged not guilty of stealing. In this case, the appellant, an attorney and
solicitor working under the firm name Che Man & Partners, conspired with Harun, a clerk
at Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), to defraud the bank of RM22.2 million. Harun was the
one who defrauded BNM of RM 22.2 million. Harun was in charge of processing checks
for Government Securities advance subscriptions. BNM got RM22.2 million in checks
from Bank Simpanan Nasional for such subscription. Harun was able to transmit this
money to the appellant's account at a branch of Bank Bumiputera in Menara Dayabumi,
where it was deposited into the account of Che Man & Partners and later paid out on
checks made by the appellant by forging the signatures of his superiors. Harun was charged
with criminal breach of trust as well as two additional accusations of cheating and stealing.
He pled guilty to the second alternative charge of stealing and received a 5-year jail term.
Applicant was later found guilty of assisting Harun in committing theft. He filed an appeal.
The third component is that it should be removed from the custody of another individual.
The property must be in the ownership of the owner or person in possession of the

7
property, according to the third requirement. Possession indicates that the item is under
legal possession or control. A movable item is said to be in the possession of a person when
he has capacity to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other individuals and when
the circumstances are such that he may be assumed to do so in case of necessity, according
to the Digest of the Criminal Law. Stealing is primarily committed against possession, not
a portion of ownership. The stolen goods must be mobile property that has not been lost,
abandoned, or put in the ownership of someone else and is still in the owner's possession.
Yet, the term "possession" is not defined. Possession in fact may refer to either real or de
facto possession. It is about having physical control over property but not necessarily
having legal rights to it. If there is constructive or de jure possession, 'possession' may also
be possession in law. The individual has the legal right to the property but does not always
have custody of it. S.7 of the Criminal Code specifies that property in the custody of a
person's wife, clerk, or servant on behalf of that person is considered to be in that person's
possession under the Penal Code. This is in relation to joint possession, when numerous
joint owners are in joint possession.
The fourth component of stealing is the aspect of permission. Under this interpretation, if a
property is taken away with the owner's agreement, the act is not considered theft since this
specific element is not met. Moreover, the case of K.N. Mehra v. The State of Rajasthan is
important to consider in this perspective. This example illustrates how consent might
function in the context of a theft offence. Before proceeding, it should be remembered that
Section 378 of the Indian Criminal Code corresponds to Section 378 of our own Penal
Code. In Mehra, both the petitioner and the appellant, M.Z. Phillips, were cadets at the
Indian Air Force Academy in Jodhpur. Nevertheless, the petitioner had been terminated for
misbehaviour, and the appellant was scheduled for a local fly in a Dakota as part of his
navigator training on the day of the event. He seized another kind of aircraft with the model
of Harvard H.T. 822 without authority and force-landed at a location in Pakistan on the
same day, with the assistance of the petitioner who knew how to fly. They phoned the
Indian High Commission a few days later, and while on their trip to India, they were
detained in Jodhpur and charged with aircraft theft.
The fifth element indicates that when a property is transferred, just the taking takes effect.
This indicates that the property must be relocated or removed from possession. It is enough
that the person who has formed such dishonest purpose transfers that property in order to
take it. This is further defined in the Criminal Code, where Explanation 2 of Section 378

8
states that a movement accomplished by the same act that accomplishes the severance may
be considered theft. It should be emphasised that, under Section 378, theft is considered
committed if it is shown that the item has been transported; it is not required to prove that
the goods has been removed out of the owner's hands. The case of Raja Mohamed v
Regina23 is significant in terms of this concept. In this case, the appellant, a chemical
mixer employed by Singapore Glass Manufacturers Co. Ltd, was accused with stealing
goods from his company. It was claimed that on 15 October 1962, at around 7.45 p.m., at
the Company's facilities in Henderson Road, Singapore, he committed theft in relation to
two dozen drinking glasses valued at $2 that were in the Company's possession. The trial
Magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him to one day in jail and a $300 fine. The
appellant filed an appeal after being dissatisfied with the ruling. The appellant contended
that, although the Magistrate determined that he transported the two dozen glasses from the
shop on the ground level of the Company's premises to a box on the first floor, it was not
shown that they were taken out of the Company's control. The High Court was found to
have rejected the appellant's position. Although the Court acknowledged that to constitute
theft, there must be an intention to take dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of another person without that person's consent, the Court determined that it was
sufficient if the person who has formed such dishonest intention moves that property in
order to such taking, making it not necessary for him to move that property out of the
possession of the other person.
Aside from that, extortionary robbery. If it is proven that the defendant committed extortion
and that the defendant put the victim in fear of immediate death, immediate bodily harm, or
immediate wrongful restraint, and that such fear induced the victim to give up or deliver a
property, the prosecution should proceed under S.390 (3) of the Penal Code, which defines
robbery by extortion. When it comes to S.383 of the Criminal Code, fear of damage
compels the victim to give up property. Fear of sudden death, instant harm, or instant
unlawful restraint, according to Criminal Code S.390 (3), causes the victim to give up
property. Extortion robbery is more severe since the dread is greater. The accused had
committed extortion, and that person was placed in dread of immediate death, instant harm,
or instant unlawful restraint to that person or to some other person, and by doing so,
compels the person thus put in fear to yield over the object extorted then and there.
Property or valuable security must have been delivered as a consequence of fear, and such
delivery of property might be handed to anyone other than the person who subjected the

9
victim to violence.
To summarise, in order to establish robbery, the court must show that there was either theft
or extortion in the process. These are the only reason a robbery may be substantiated under
the Criminal Code since robbery does not occur on its own, particularly when the element
primarily concentrates on the use of violence and force. The use of force without theft or
extortion is only an attack or criminal force against a person, since it does not entail the
unlawful acquisition of other people's property. Robbery is an extreme type of theft and
extortion since robbery would be incomplete without theft and extortion. By defining this
topic, the Criminal Code has aided the court in comprehending the nature of theft,
extortion, and robbery while considering cases, particularly when the parties make
contradictory accusations. Besides from recognising the three criminal actions, the court
will be able to compare them, particularly how robbery differs from stealing or extortion.

10