Theft is generally said to be the action by which a person takes property owned by another person, by force or threat. From a legal point of view, theft was defined by Justice Mukerji. in Karali Prasad Dutta v. The East India Railway Co as being an unlawful taking of another person or contrary to the will of a person in his existence, by means of violence or by putting him in fear. The problem of theft is not a new trend in Malaysia. Recently, a 17-year-old and a friend were arrested for committing a robbery at a convenience store in Sibu, Sarawak. In this case, the offenders were arrested for stealing RM1,000 from a 24-hour convenience store and would be remanded in custody under Section 395 or 397 of the Penal Code for the crime they committed, namely armed robbery. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay Our Malaysian law protects us from theft because there are express provisions made in the Penal Code that govern theft which falls under the provision of article 390 of the Penal Code. Article 402. Article 390 briefly provides that in case of robbery, there must be either theft or extortion. However, robbery is distinct from theft and extortion, because in robbery, elements such as the use of force or fear of someone must be present to distinguish the offenses, as noted in paragraphs ( 2) and (3) of Article 390. Therefore, in order to establish In case of the offense of robbery, prosecution must first prove theft or extortion, as provided respectively in Articles 378 and 383. The actus reus for theft is similar to theft and extortion but is accompanied by the use of force or violence, while the mens rea for theft is the intention to frighten a person in order to commit the criminal act of theft and extortion. For better understanding, we can refer to illustration (e) of section 390 according to which A is said to commit theft if Z is walking along a road and A who is on a motorcycle snatches the handbag of Z and, in doing so, injures Z and then rolls. with Z's handbag. In the case of Karuppa Gooundan, the expression "for this purpose" should not be interpreted to mean "in these circumstances". In Bishambhar Nath v. Emperor it is stated that the use of force or violence will not convert theft into theft unless the force used is intended to achieve one of the objectives specified in Article 390 ( 2). Section 391 provides that the offense of gang theft is committed when two or more persons commit or attempt to commit theft together, and persons are present and assist in the said commission or attempt. Another evidence to prove that our law has effectively protected us from robbery is that the Penal Code also imposes penalties for the crime of robbery, as provided in Article 392, which states that a person shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum term of fourteen years and will also be liable to penalties such as a fine or flogging. if he commits theft. In the case of Mohd Shaiful bin Rahmad v. PP, the appellant was charged with theft of a gold necklace belonging to the complainant under section 392. The appellant was convicted and punished with imprisonment of seven years and two strokes of whip. Furthermore, any person who commits or attempts to commit theft, intentionally causes harm, he or she shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years and at the same time liable to fine or whipping, as stated in article 394. In MuhammadAfandi bin Mukhtar v Attorney General, it was held that the appellant was liable for an offense under Section 394 of the Penal Code read with Section 34 for intentionally injuring the victim during the commission of robbery and was imprisoned for nine years from the date of his arrest and two lashes. The penalties for gang theft were provided for in article 395 which states that anyone who commits gang theft will be sentenced to a maximum prison term of twenty years and may also be punished with whipping. Article 396 deals with gang robberies involving murder, the perpetrators of which must be sentenced either to death or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty years and nevertheless be sentenced to whipping if neither death penalty is not imposed. Section 397 makes whipping a mandatory punishment for the offender if he is armed or uses a dangerous weapon, or if he causes serious injury to another. The seriousness of the theft, particularly in cases of gang theft, may be reflected in the higher penalty prescribed. In the case of Attorney General v Lee Wei Chin & Anor, the court allowed the appeal filed by the Attorney General by setting aside the judgment of two years' imprisonment passed by the SCJ and replacing it with the sanction of imprisonment of seven years for the two respondents and five lashes by justifying that the criminal act committed was of a serious nature. The fact that only RM200 was involved, as claimed by the respondents' lawyers, does not mean that the offense can be considered trivial in nature. The ordeal and trauma the victim must have endured when she feared for her life when confronted with a knife must also be taken into account. Furthermore, in the case of Mohd Irwan Shah bin Zainaul v. PP, the applicant's appeal was rejected and the sentence of 14 years' imprisonment and six strokes of the rotan was upheld on the grounds that the sentence had to be proportional to the offense committed so that society could feel safe. safe and protected. Regarding the objectives of a comparative study, the anti-theft law in Singapore can be seen as the Singapore legislature making caning a mandatory punishment for almost all theft-related offenses, while the law in Malaysia is still considered lenient since part of the provision suggests that there is a choice between a fine or flogging. For example, in section 394 of the Malaysian Penal Code and the Singapore Penal Code, the punishment provided in the Malaysian Penal Code is that the offender will be imprisoned for a maximum term of 20 years and may also be subject to a fine or whipping while in the provision in Singapore states that the offender must be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 20 years and beaten with a minimum of 12 strokes. In Chang Kar Meng v PP, the accused was jailed for five years and caned 12 times for robbery with injury. As in the Islamic perspective, four punishments were provided by the Hudud, among them the death penalty, crucifixion, amputation of the hands and feet of the opposite sides and also banishment. However, the penalties vary depending on the seriousness of the offense committed. If the theft is committed without murder, the punishment would be amputation of the right hand and left leg. If the theft involves murder, the death penalty will be imposed and the offender will also be crucified. However, for ḥudud to be performed, a set of conditions must be met, whereby it must be subject to due process and all forms of doubt and suspicion must be eliminated. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized paper now from our.