Criminal

        The next issue that can be discuss is whether Asrul can be charge for theft.

        Based on the section 378 of Penal Code, whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. According to the explanation 5 of section 378, the consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied. Based on section 24, whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another person, irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. Wrongful gain is define in section 23 as the property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.

        Refer to the case of LAI CHAN NGIANG v PP, the accused sold some bundles of cloth to the complainant on credit. When the complainant failed to make payment (debtor) the accused went to his shop and removed four bundles of cloth, three of which were those sold to the complainant. The court held that the accused believed in good faith that as a creditor, he had a right to take back the property from the debtor, therefore he was not convicted for theft. Applying to the reffering case, it is contradict with Asrul’s case which Asrul refused to pay the food eventhough he had consumed the food.

        The other issue is whether Asrul can be charge for subsequent offence.

Section 378 of Penal Code stated that whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

         Based on the WARD V PP case, the fact of this case is two accused was convicted under section 380 .The defence argued that they have no criminal intention because they took the item for a short time and will return it back if the owner asked back. There is only temporary deprivation. But the court held that the accused was guilty although he  has no intention to deprive the property permanently from its owner. Temporary deprivation is sufficient to constitute theft. In the present case, Asrul took out a bottle of tomato ketchup and a spoon while walking out from the restaurant. Although he has no intention to deprive the property permanently from its owner but the fact he took the property out from the restaurant is sufficient to constitute he commit theft.Thus, Asrul can be charge for subsequent offence.