ARMS AND AMMUNITION

Ammunition

Arms and Explosives - Ammunition - Possession - Characteristics of

Toh Ah Loh & Mak Thim v R [1949] MLJ 54, Court of Appeal, Singapore

Toh Ah Loh and Mak Thim were convicted of possession of ammunition without a licence under section 13(1)(g) of the Arms and Explosives Act 1913. They appealed against their convictions on the ground that the ammunition in their possession was not "ammunition" within the meaning of the Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the ammunition in question was indeed "ammunition" within the meaning of the Act. The Court held that "ammunition" is any material or object which is capable of being used to discharge a firearm. The Court found that the ammunition in question was capable of being used to discharge a firearm, and therefore it was "ammunition" within the meaning of the Act.





Arms Act

Arms and Explosives - Arms Act - Ammunition - Licence - Onus of proof

Public Prosecutor v Leong Chee Moon & Anor [1969] 1 MLJ 68, High Court, Seremban

Leong Chee Moon and Anor were charged with possession of ammunition without a licence under section 13(1)(g) of the Arms and Explosives Act 1913. The prosecution alleged that the ammunition was found in their possession when they were arrested.

The defence argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that they were in possession of the ammunition. The defence argued that the ammunition could have been planted on them by the police.

The High Court held that the prosecution had proved that the defendants were in possession of the ammunition. The Court held that the prosecution had discharged the onus of proof by proving that the defendants had the ammunition in their possession when they were arrested.



Arms and Explosives - Arms Act - Disorderly conduct - Sentencing

Public Prosecutor v Kam Phang Lin [1973] 1 MLJ 65, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

Kam Phang Lin was charged with disorderly conduct under section 14(1) of the Arms and Explosives Act 1913. The prosecution alleged that Kam Phang Lin was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition in a public place.

Kam Phang Lin pleaded guilty to the charge. He was sentenced to a fine of RM100 or three months' imprisonment.





Arms and Explosives - Arms Act - Possession - Exclusive control

Yee Ya Mang v Public Prosecutor [1927] MLJ 120, High Court, Muar

Yee Ya Mang was charged with possession of a firearm without a licence under section 13(1)(g) of the Arms and Explosives Act 1913. The prosecution alleged that Yee Ya Mang was found in possession of a firearm in his house.

Yee Ya Mang pleaded not guilty to the charge. He argued that he did not have exclusive control over the firearm. He argued that the firearm belonged to his brother.

The High Court found Yee Ya Mang guilty of the charge. The Court held that Yee Ya Mang had exclusive control over the firearm, even though it belonged to his brother. The Court held that Yee Ya Mang was responsible for the firearm, and therefore he was guilty of possession of a firearm without a licence.





Arms and Explosives - Arms Act - Possession of pistol - Inspection

Mohamed bin Musa v Deputy Public Prosecutor [1972] 1 MLJ 49, High Court, Kota Bharu

Mohamed bin Musa was charged with possession of a pistol without a licence under section 13(1)(g) of the Arms and Explosives Act 1913. The prosecution alleged that Mohamed bin Musa was found in possession of a pistol in his house.

Mohamed bin Musa pleaded not guilty to the charge. He argued that the police had no right to inspect his house without a warrant.

The High Court found Mohamed bin Musa guilty of the charge. The Court held that the police had the right to inspect Mohamed bin Musa's house without a warrant, because they had reasonable grounds to believe that he was in possession of a firearm.



Arms and ammunition

Arms and Explosives - Arms and ammunition - Possession - Charges - Court's powers

Public Prosecutor v Viran [1947] MLJ 62, High Court, Malayan Union

Viran was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence under section 13(1)(g) of the Arms and Explosives Act 1913. The prosecution alleged that Viran was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition in his house.

Viran pleaded not guilty to the charge. He argued that he had a licence for the firearm and ammunition.

The prosecution called two witnesses, the police officer who arrested Viran and the firearms expert who examined the firearm and ammunition. The defence called no witnesses.

The High Court found Viran guilty of the charge. The Court held that the prosecution had proved that Viran did not have a licence for the firearm and ammunition.

The Court sentenced Viran to a fine of RM100 or three months' imprisonment.





Arms and Explosives - Arms and ammunition - Possession - Consorting - Duress

Tan Hoi Hung v Public Prosecutor [1966] 1 MLJ 288, Federal Court, Johore Bahru

Tan Hoi Hung was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence under section 13(1)(g) of the Arms and Explosives Act 1913. The prosecution alleged that Tan Hoi Hung was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition in his house.

Tan Hoi Hung pleaded not guilty to the charge. He argued that he was in possession of the firearm and ammunition under duress.

The prosecution called two witnesses, the police officer who arrested Tan Hoi Hung and the firearms expert who examined the firearm and ammunition. The defence called one witness, Tan Hoi Hung himself.

The High Court found Tan Hoi Hung guilty of the charge. The Court held that the prosecution had proved that Tan Hoi Hung was not in possession of the firearm and ammunition under duress.

Tan Hoi Hung appealed against his conviction to the Federal Court. The Federal Court allowed Tan Hoi Hung's appeal and quashed his conviction.

The Federal Court held that the High Court had erred in law in finding that Tan Hoi Hung was not in possession of the firearm and ammunition under duress. The Federal Court held that the prosecution had not proved that Tan Hoi Hung was not in possession of the firearm and ammunition under duress.

The Federal Court also held that the High Court had erred in law in sentencing Tan Hoi Hung to a fine of RM100 or three months' imprisonment. The Federal Court held that the High Court had not taken into account the fact that Tan Hoi Hung was in possession of the firearm and ammunition under duress.

The Federal Court ordered that Tan Hoi Hung be acquitted and discharged.