Mustaza Bin Abdul Majid v Public Prosecutor: Theft from Supermarket & Dishonest Intention
In Mustaza Bin Abdul Majid v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the conviction of Mustaza Bin Abdul Majid for theft under Section 380 of the Penal Code. The Chief Justice Yong Pung How dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Judge's finding that Mustaza had dishonestly taken a carton of Red Bull from a Prime Supermarket without consent. The court found that Mustaza was apprehended outside the supermarket premises, establishing the lack of consent and dishonest intention required for a theft conviction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Mustaza Bin Abdul Majid was convicted of theft from a supermarket. The High Court dismissed his appeal, finding dishonest intention.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction upheld | Won | Edwin San of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Mustaza Bin Abdul Majid | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Edwin San | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| S K Kumar | S K Kumar and Associates |
4. Facts
- The appellant took a carton of Red Bull from Prime Supermarket.
- The appellant was observed by a security officer to be behaving suspiciously.
- The appellant walked past cashier counters without paying for the carton.
- The appellant was apprehended outside the supermarket premises.
- The appellant claimed he had no money and threw the carton down.
- The appellant claimed he was attacked by the security officer without reason.
5. Formal Citations
- Mustaza Bin Abdul Majid v Public Prosecutor, MA 133/2003, [2004] SGHC 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Theft occurred at Prime Supermarket | |
| Appellant apprehended by security personnel | |
| Appeal against conviction dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Theft
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had taken the carton of Red Bull without the consent of the supermarket and with dishonest intention, thus constituting theft.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Taking without consent
- Dishonest intention
- Dishonest Intention
- Outcome: The court inferred dishonest intention from the appellant's conduct of taking the carton outside the supermarket without payment.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 2 SLR 645
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Theft
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Shoplifting
11. Industries
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Er Joo Nguang v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 645 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that dishonest intent must be inferred from the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances. |
| PP v Azman bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 704 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court is reluctant to overturn a trial judge’s finding of fact. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court is reluctant to overturn a trial judge’s finding of fact, especially where it hinges upon an assessment of the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. |
| Ameer Akbar v Abdul Hamid | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court does not have the advantages of seeing and hearing the witnesses and will defer to those findings. |
| Kong See Chew v PP | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 94 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court does not have the advantages of seeing and hearing the witnesses and will defer to those findings. |
| Garmaz s/o Pakhar v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 701 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the critical issue for the appellant was whether the district judge was plainly wrong in her assessment of the witnesses. |
| Khoo Kwoon Hain v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 767 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proving a lack of motive to falsely implicate the appellant is on the prosecution. |
| Soh Yang Tick v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 42 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that as an appellate judge, I am fully competent and in as good a position as the district judge to draw the inference which I did. |
| Arts Niche Cyber Distribution Pte Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 111 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the application of Browne v Dunn regarding the opportunity for a witness to explain their evidence during cross-examination. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 380 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 378 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Theft
- Dishonest intention
- Consent
- Supermarket
- Security officer
- Prime Supermarket
15.2 Keywords
- Theft
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Supermarket
- Dishonest Intention
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Theft | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 80 |
| Property Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Theft
- Property Law