Written by: Averroes
(1.0) Introduction
In Kota Kinabalu, a divorced father who is taking care of his 9-year-old child alone was sentenced to 3 months jail after he stole 18 packets of Milo. He had to do it to support his child, by selling them. Yassin Muhammad Nur, age 31 was unemployed at the time and admitted his wrongdoings.
He committed the offence at the KWC The Grocer. The facts of the case was that, Yassin was leaving the grocery store without paying. The store staff tried to halt him, but he threatened anyone who would approach him.
The Store Manager then called the police, where Yassin was then arrested. The 18 packets of Milo was then seized at a stall in Medan Selera, Kg. Air, Asia City.
Therefore, the offence was framed as under section 380 of the Penal Code with imprisonment up to 10 years and fine upon conviction. In court, the National Legal Aid Foundation sought for leniency in Yassin's sentencing as he was desperate and it was his first offence.
He was also jobless, divorced and a child to take care of. If we do the maths, a packet of Milo of 1kg would be around RM15 to 20. Let's say a packet would be RM18 by looking at prices on Shopee, that would amount to RM200!
For some people, it is not worth it to send him to jail for such a small issue and he was desperate to survive, especially during this pandemic, but for business owners, they don't share the same view, because they would suffer losses.
If he could steal, then everyone else works hard earning money to pay for what they want.
(2.0) Legal Analysis
Here, it does not matter what is the value of the goods or items stolen, whether it's a cheap trinket, in human judgement not morally or justifiably that serious or even penniless.
(2.1) Public Prosecutor v Andrew AK Banchu [1994] MLJU 71;
It was an appeal case whereby the punishment imposed on the accused was inadequate. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge under section 380 of the Penal Code for theft of item amounting to RM30.10.
The items stolen includes 10 packets of soft drinks and 10 packets of chocolate from a building used as human dwelling. Even if they are just petty theft and in some people's opinion a small issue, not everyone share the same view.
Everyone has the right to their goods, even how trivial or small it may be. Therefore, those who commit theft is given the jail sentence. It is mandatory under the law and the imprisonment can be added together with a fine.
Clearly, imprisonment is mandatory because under the provision, the words "shall be punished with imprisonment" rather than "shall be liable". Therefore in this case, only giving fine is clearly wrong, there needs to be the mandatory imprisonment regardless of the situation.
Though court provided that there are two provisions of section 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Meaning, both provisions allow the accused not to be sentenced to imprisonment straightaway.
The court applied section 294 of the CPC to exclude the imprisonment punishment, since the accused was below the age of adulthood. Instead he was given probation of good conduct as it was his first offence. The sentence of fine was set aside.
He is to be released upon entering into a bond with one surety of RM1,000 and remain under police supervision for a period of three years, while keeping peace of good behaviour.
(2.2) Public Prosecutor v Mohd Azri B Ba'aduzaman [2017] MLJU 2191;
The accused was found guilty and convicted for an offence under section 380 of the Penal Code for theft at a Giant Supermarket in Batu Caves, Selangor on 21/01/2017 at 7.00pm.
The accused was found in possession of items amounting to RM144.95, without any proof of payment.
The items were, Pantene Shampoo, FKM Herb Scissor 10 Blades, Chef Knife with cover, Loreal Conditioner Fall Repair, PH5 Oat Milk with almond Body Wash, Sensodyne Completion Protection, Utility Knife and a Loreal Eye Cream.
For what reason why he stole those items, it is not mentioned in the case. Did he steal them for his barber business or wanted to prim his hair?
The accused tried to mitigate his sentence by relying on section 294 of the CPC as well for supervision of his father, Ba'aduzaman bin Ramlu for the period of two (2) years and that he shall report to Mantin Police Station, Negeri Sembilan for every 2 months for 2 years.
To allow application of section 294 of the CPC, to pass this appropriate sentence, court has to take into account of aggravating and mitigating factors. Here, the accused had returned the items and he pleaded guilty.
The accused was also a first-offender and aged 32 years old, who previously worked with Perodua, earning RM2016.00 a month. Now, he studies as a full-time student in the Bachelor of Art in Business Administration at Linton University College.
This should be a mitigating factor as his future is dependent on his education and as an exception to the mandatory imprisonment. He was also remorseful and was in tears. The court finally held that, the accused should be given a chance to lead an honest life and as a law-abiding citizen.
Therefore, a bond of good behaviour is sentenced instead of imprisonment. This should not be treated as an escape from punishment, but a suspension of two years where he must follow the court's conditions and directions, where he must keep peace and good behaviour.
If not, he would face his original offence.
(3.0) Conclusion
To conclude, theft has the mandatory punishment of 10 years maximum imprisonment due to its serious nature, regardless if the items stolen were trivial, valueless or superficial.
(4.0) References;
Ersie Anjumin (2022) Single dad jailed stealing Milo. Retrieved from, https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2022/04/792861/single-dad-jailed-stealing-milo
Comments
Post a Comment