A three-member bench chaired by Justice Kamaludin Said today granted a former policeman leave to bring an appeal after his lawyer identified three legal questions for the appellate court’s determination.
Lawyer P Purshotaman said the court should determine if Section 498 of the Penal Code, which is a pre-independence law introduced by the British, violates the fundamental rights of men as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Deputy public prosecutor Nahra Dollah said the prosecution will not oppose the 41-year old man’s application for leave to appeal.
Kamaludin, who sat with Justices Che Ruzima Ghazali and Azman Abdullah, urged both parties to prepare well to argue for and against the Penal Code provision.
“Don’t make a mockery of the law,” he said.
Section 498 says that a person who entices away any woman whom he knows to be the wife of another for the purpose of illicit intercourse commits an offence punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or both.
The appellant last month set out the three questions in his application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
The first asks whether Section 498 violates Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution by discriminating against men.
The second involves a consideration of whether the court has power under Articles 162(6) and (7) of the Constitution to repeal Section 498, which is a pre-independence law.
The third question asks what modification and interpretation the court can take to ensure Section 498 does not violate Articles 5(1) and 8(1).
Article 5(1) states no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
Meanwhile, Article 8(1) guarantees that every person is equal under the law and has equal protection of law.
The former policeman was charged in the Kuala Terengganu magistrates’ court on Nov 3, 2019 with committing the offence in Kuala Terengganu between Nov 25, 2016 and June 17, 2018.
On March 6 last year, the magistrate sentenced him to six months’ jail and a RM3,500 fine after he was found guilty. The court allowed him a stay of the jail term pending an appeal. He has paid the fine.
On Feb 23 this year, the High Court dismissed his appeal against the conviction, but varied the sentence by raising the fine to RM6,000 and setting aside the jail term.