PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal decided it would set another date to deliver its ruling on the final appeal by former Sabah Infrastructure Development minister Datuk Peter Anthony (pic), who is seeking to overturn his conviction, prison sentence, and fine for falsifying documents related to a maintenance and service contract at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).
The three-judge panel, led by Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, made the decision on Thursday (Aug 1) after hearing arguments from Peter’s lawyer, Datuk Nicholas Kow Eng Chuan, and deputy public prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin.
"We will set another date to deliver the decision," said Ahmad Zaidi, who presided with Judges Mohamed Zaini Mazlan and Datuk Azmi Ariffin.
The court then scheduled Aug 16 for the next case management.
This is Peter’s final appeal after the Kuala Lumpur High Court rejected his attempt on April 18 last year to overturn his conviction.
The High Court had upheld the three-year prison sentence and the RM50,000 fine in default 15 months prison, imposed by the Sessions Court on May 26, 2022. The Melalap state assemblyman settled the fine.
Peter, as the managing director of Asli Jati Sdn Bhd, was charged with falsifying a letter from the UMS deputy vice-chancellor dated June 9, 2014, by including false statements with the intent to deceive.
He is accused of allegedly committing the offence at the office of the principal private secretary to the Prime Minister, Perdana Putra Building, Putrajaya, between June 13 and Aug 21, 2014.
He was charged under Section 468 of the Penal Code, which provides for a maximum prison sentence of seven years and a fine.
Previously, Kow had contended that the charge against his client was defective because there was no signature from the prosecutor on the charge sheet read to Peter during his arraignment.
He stated that the charge sheet must be signed by the prosecutor in accordance with Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
"The prosecution argued that the provision applies only to cases in the High Court, whereas Peter's case was heard in the Sessions Court. However, we argue that the law must be applied uniformly, and this provision should also be applicable in lower courts," said the lawyer.
Wan Shaharuddin, on the other hand, argued that the absence of a signature on the charge sheet does not constitute a miscarriage of justice.
He emphasised that the charge, whether original or amended, was read and explained to the appellant.
"The appellant also understood the charges read to him, so the lack of a signature on the charge sheet is merely an omission that cannot be construed as a miscarriage of justice,” he said.- Bernama
