NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

THEFT

Provision for theft – s.378

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.

ELEMENTS (according to the colours marked in the provision above)

1. Mens rea – Intention to dishonestly take the property

▪ ‘dishonestly’ is explained in s.24 - intentionally causing wrongful gain/loss to
another
▪ The intention MUST be proved
Cases:
Lai Chan Ngiang v. PP [1930]
The accused takes/moves the property in the plaintiff’s store that was scheduled
but was not payed yet by the plaintiff.
HELD: Dishonest intention cannot be assumed; it MUST be proved.
Tsen En Fook v. R [1953]
The accused stole 8 Nibong tree trunks. He was said to have cut down the tree
without the owner’s consent.
Held: He was released because he had genuine belief that he had rights towards
the tree.
▪ When does the intention exist?
▪ Ketika mengambil – illustations (f)
“A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which he occupies.
Here the ring is in Z’s possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A
commits theft.”
▪ Ketika menggerakkan – illustrations (h)
“A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing
to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A
hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be
found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and
selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the
ring, commits theft.”
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

Cases:
Ismail bin Mahad v. PP [1999]
The accused was charged under s 379 for stealing a necklace that belonged
to a lady. The accused said that the necklace fell off to his hands.
The court of appeal held that: whether the necklace was pulled or fell of
itself was irrelevant. What was important is the intention when the necklace
was taken out of possession. If at that time the intention was to deprive the
owner of the possession, mens rea has been established.

2. Actus Reus
2.1 The Property must be a movable property
▪ ONLY movable property
▪ Meaning of ‘movable property’ in s 22
“The words “movable property” are intended to include corporeal property
of every description, except land and things attached to the earth, or
permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.”
Illustrations - Writings, relating to real or personal property or rights, are
movable property.
▪ An immovable property can be a movable property if it can be
moved/removed.
S 378 – Explanation 1
“A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property,
is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of
theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.”
R v. Lim Soon Gong [1930]
The argument used was that sand was part of land/earth, so it is not a
movable propery.
Held: Once the sand is lifted, it is severed from the earth making it a
movable property.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

2.2 Taking the property out of a person’s possession

▪ A person who possesses the property does not necessarily mean that he is
the rightful owner. Theft is an offence against POSESSION not
ownership. (Who is the ‘person’ is in s 27 – wife, clerk, servant, employer)
Illustration (j)
“If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch
lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z’s
possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security
for his debt, he commits theft, inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly.”
Illustration (k)
“Again, if A having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z’s possession
without Z’s consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he
commits theft, though the watch is his own property, inasmuch as he takes
it dishonestly”
Case:
PP v Hong Ah Huad [1971]

2.3 Taking without the person’s consent

▪ Meaning of ‘consent’
S 378 – Explanation 5
“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.”

Illustration (m) – example of implied consent

“A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence and
takes away a book, without Z’s express consent, for the purpose merely of
reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A
may have conceived that he had Z’s implied consent to use Z’s book. If this
was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.”
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

Illustration (n) – impression that the person has authority to give consent
“A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which
A, knows to belong to Z, her husband. Here it is probable that A may
conceive that Z’s wife is authorized to give away alms. If this was A’s
impression, A has not committed theft.”

Illustration (o) – example of no consent

“A is the paramour (aka scandal) of Z’s wife. She gives A valuable property,
which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she
has no authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he
commits theft.”

2.4 The act of moving the property itself

▪ Just by moving the property from its original position is an offence when it
is proved.
▪ Moving the property for a short period of time is also theft
Mehra v State of Rajashtan
A pilot trainee was flying a jet owned by the Indian air force, to Pakistan. In
his defence argument, it was said that he just flew the jet for a short time
and planned to bring it back to the base.
Held: even though the act of moving the jet was for a short while, it is still
theft.
▪ What if the property was moved in good faith?
Meaning that the person took the property because he in good faith thought
that the property was his.
Test of good faith is in s 52
“Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or
believed without due care and attention.”

▪ Moving or causing an animal to removed is theft

Explanation 4 s378 - A person, who by any means causes an animal to move,
is said to move that animal, and to move everything which in consequence
of the motion so caused is moved by that animal.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

Illustration (b)
A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z’s dog to follow it.
Here, if A’s intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z’s possession
without Z’s consent, A has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog has begun to
follow A.

Illustration (c)
A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a
certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon
as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure.

▪ Cases
Raja Mohamed v. R [1963]
The accused was an employee in a company and was accused of stealing a
glass. He moved the glass from the store room to the top level and argued
that he did not commit an offence since he did not bring the glass out of the
building. He just moved it to the level above.
Held: It was an act of theft when he moved the property for him to take it
later, and when he moved it, it was said that he has taken it dishonestly.
For offences under s 378, it is not necessary for the property to be taken
out of the building, even though the property was still within the
company’s premise, the act of theft has already been established when
he moves the property with dishonest intention.

Thiangiah v. PP [1971]
The accused was accused of stealing fertilisers. The fertilisers were brought
to his car but was still within the region of the farm. The prosecutors failed
to prove the accused’s dishonest intention when he taken the property and
moved it. In addition, transporting the fertilizers were part of his job.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

Talha v. PP [1971]
The accused was convicted of stealing rubber milk from the complainant’s
rubber plantation.
Held: the farm was still under the name of the complainant (as the owner
registered), but not the actual owner with interest, because the complainant
was only a trustee.

PUNISHMENT FOR THEFT

S.379 -general punishment for theft

• imprisonment up to 7 years or fine or both

• For second or subsequent offence, imprisonment or fine or whipping.

S.379A – for theft of motor vehicle

• The act of stealing a motor vehicle or any component parts (tyre, accessory, equipment)
of the vehicle
• Imprisonment for 1-7 years and also liable for fine.
• Cases:
PP v Wong Chack Heng [1985]
PP v. Toh Kee Huat [1965]
PP v. Ahmad Yusof (posmen curi surat saham)

S.380 – theft in dwelling house

• The punishment is heavier for theft committed in building, tent or vessels that are used
as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property.
• Imprisonment up to 10 years, also liable for fine
• For a 2nd or more offence, imprisonment, fine or whipping.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

S.381 – theft by clerk or servants of property under master’s possession

• Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.

• Must be identify who is the employer and in who’s possession was the property in
during that time.
• Prosecutor must prove that the property was taken without the consent of the property’s
possessor.
Vijayaratnam v. PP [1962].

S.382 – theft after preparation for causing death or hurt in order to commit theft

• Illustrations (a) and (b)

“A commits theft of property in Z’s possession; and, while committing this theft, he has
a loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this pistol for the purpose of hurting
Z in case Z should resist. A has committed the offence defined in this section.”
“A picks Z’s pocket, having posted several of his companions near him, in order that
they may restrain Z, if Z should perceive what is passing and should resist, or should
attempt to apprehend A. A has committed the offence defined in this section.”
• Imprisonment up to 10 years and also liable for fine or whipping
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

EXTORTION

PROVISION – s.383

“…intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and
thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or
valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security…”

ELEMENTS

1. Intentionally puts any person in fear

General Principle: If there is no fear from the victim, there is no extortion
The issue is not just the threat made, but whether the victim was also put in fear
Beh Tuck Seng v. PP [1947]
The accused approached a stall holder saying that he wanted $10.80 for ‘expenses’ and
that ‘everyone here has joined, what about you?’.
Held: He had committed extortion. The words, viewed in context, had put the victim in
fear.
Tan Cheng Hui v. PP [1972]
- If words innocent on the surface were uttered with overtones or implication of
injury, there is a threat of injury.

2. Fear of any injury to that person or to any other

What is meant by injury?
Abu Hassan v. PP [1962] MLJ 61
The appellant, a customs officer, was convicted for attempted extortion under s385. The
appellant told a man named Thangavelu that unless he paid the appellant RM500, the
appellant would report him to higher authority with a view to action being taken against
him as the amount of money in the bag was in excess of the total amount of local
currency which two people were permitted to export.
Hepworth J: Injury is defined in s44. There “Injury” is harm illegally caused, and if it
follows the exercise of legal powers, however done, it can never constitute harm. In his
opinion, the offence was not extortion. If there was evidence adduced by prosecution,
the offence is under Prevention of Corruption Ordinance 1950.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

PP v. Johar [1965]1 MLJ 139

Ling Kai Huat v. PP [1966] MLJ 123
Lee Hun Hoe J: Threats that are done for the purpose of enforcing payment more than
is due is illegal, and such a threat made with such an object must be held to be a threat
of injury sufficient to constitute offence of extortion. The fact the complainant was
liable to be charged was compoundable can make no difference. The question is, was
the complainant induced by such threats to pay the accused more than the latter
was entitled to, and the finding is in affirmative. This is sufficient to justify the
conviction.

Habib Khan v. State [1952] Cr. LJ 1391

- ‘injury’ in s.383 is not limited to physical injury only
- Threat by accusing the victim of crime is also an ‘injury’, whether the accuse is true
or not.

Vincent Lee v R [1949]

A police officer (D) comes across a person (V) who is taking illicit drugs and says that
he or she will take no further action provided V hands over a sum of money. Common
use of English language would suggest that D is extorting money from V. However, for
the purposes of s383, D is not threatening any illegal harm, but D is threatening to
exercise his power which he can legally exercise. If D arrests V for breaking the law,
the arrest would be legal.

Held: It was not extortion.

3. Dishonestly induces the person

Illustration (a)
“A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z, unless Z gives him money. He
thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.”

4. To deliver to any person any property or valuable security

Illustration (d)
“A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal
to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the
paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security, A has committed extortion.”
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

PUNISHMENT

S.384 – General punishment for extortion

• Imprisonment up to 10 years or fine or whipping or either two of these three

punishments.

S.385 – puts any person in fear before committing extortion

• Imprisonment up to 7 years, or with fine, or with whipping, or either 2.

S.388 – punishment for extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt

• Imprisonment up to 14 years and shall be liable to fine or whipping.

S.389 – Putting a person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion

• No extortion yet, but there is already fear of injury

• For an accuse of offence punishable with death, imprisonment up to 20 yrs and
imprisonment up to 10 years = Imprisonment up to 10 years and shall be liable to fine
or whipping
• If offence accused is punishable under s377, 377B and 377c = imprisonment up to 20
years.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

ROBBERY
Robbery and Gang-Robbery
Section 390. Robbery.
Section 391. Gang-robbery.
Section 392. Punishment for robbery.
Section 393. Attempt to commit robbery.
Section 394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.
Section 395. Punishment for gang-robbery.
Section 396. Gang-robbery with murder.
Section 397. Robbery when armed or with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
Section 398. (Repealed.)
Section 399. Making preparation to commit gang-robbers.
Section 400. Punishment for belonging to gang of robbers.
Section 401. Punishment for belonging to wandering gang of thieves.
Section 402. Assembling for purpose of committing gang-robbery.

PROVISION – S.390

(1) In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

(2) Theft is “robbery”, if, in order to commit theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying
away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that
end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death, or hurt, or
wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint
(3) Extortion is “robbery”, if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the
presence of the person put in fear and commits the extortion by putting that person
in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that
person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so
put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

EXPLANATION

▪ In cases of robbery, there must either be theft or extortion

(theft + robbery) or (extortion+robbery)
▪ Robbery is a hybrid offence
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

ELEMENTS (Depends whether by theft or extortion)

1. Robbery by Theft
(a) D moved a movable property
(b) D intended to take the movable property without P’s consent
(c) D was dishonest
(d) Linked to the theft or to the taking away of the property,
D had voluntarily caused or attempted to cause:
- Death, hurtful or wrongful restraint: or
- Fear of instant death, instant hurt, or instant wrongful restraint.
- #it must be proved that the accused had caused or attempted to cause or attempted
to cause bodily pain or infirmity on the victim. Snatching is not robbery if it did not
cause bodily pain.

2. Robbery by extortion
(a) D was in the presence of P
(b) D was intentionally putting P in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful
restraint
(c) D thereby induced P to deliver property to any person
(d) D was dishonest

CASES:

Bishambahar Nath v Emperor

There was an argument and a scuffle between the accused and the victim. After the scuffle, the
accused stole a cash box and money.

Held: it was not sufficient to prove the hurt was caused, ‘in the circumstances’. The words ‘for
that end’ meant that it was only robbery if the violence was inflicted with the primary
object of enabling the commission of theft or carrying the goods away.

If the thief has abandoned the stolen items but then causes hurt in order to evade capture, it will
not be robbery, but sperate offences of theft and voluntarily causing hurt.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

PP v Victor Rajoo

The accused was convicted of raping a woman in the back of the van. He had just then taken
her money. The court found that the causal link was present as he had just raped her and there
were signs of a struggle with respect of the money itself.

PUNISHMENT

S.392 – punishment for committing robbery

▪ Imprisonment up to 14 years, and also liable to fine or whipping.

S.393 – Attempt to commit robbery

▪ Imprisonment up to 7 years and also liable to fine

S.394 – voluntarily causes hurt in committing or attempting robbery

▪ Imprisonment up to 20 years, and also liable to fine or whipping

GANG-ROBBERY

PROVISION – s 391

When two or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where
the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery,
and of persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to two or more…

EXPLANATIONS

▪ All persons involved in the robbery including helping/aiding are said to have committed
gang-robbery.

ELEMENTS OF GANG-ROBBERY

(a) Act of theft or extortion

(b) The act of theft or extortion has reached to the extent of robbery
(c) Number of persons involved must be 2 and above
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

CASE

PP v Burhanuddin [2006]

Accused and another 2 of his friends had committed a robbery and were armed with a knife
and a screwdriver that could cause fear and death to the victim.

Held: The accused was punished with a 7-year imprisonment and 5 whips.

PUNISHMENT FOR GANG ROBBERY

S.395

▪ Imprisonment up to 20 years and also liable to whipping

S.396 – gang robbery with murder

▪ The members are jointly liable if one of them commits murder

▪ Death
▪ If not punishment of death, imprisonment up to 30 years and also liable to whipping

OTHER PUNISHMENTS:

S.397 – armed robbery

S.399 – preparations to commit gang robbery

NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

DISHONEST MISSAPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY

PROVISION – S.403

Whoever dishonestly misappropriates, or converts to his own use, or causes any other person
to dispose of, any property…

#Dia buat dishonest missapropriation SELEPAS mendapat harta tersebut.

ELEMENTS

1. Dishonestly
• The accused acted dishonestly only AFTER possessing the item. During the
transaction, there was no dishonest intention.
Hj Sahid b Shaik Peroo [1855]

R v Batty
The accused had been entrusted with funds in his capacity as the Postmaster
General of Penang. He had worked for three months without receiving his salary
and had then taken a sum of money for his own use.
Held: not guilty of CBT by misappropriation on the basis that it had not been
proved that he was dishonest. The court indicated that an intention to return
property at a later date, coupled with the likely capacity to do so, negates
dishonesty.
2. Misappropriation or conversion of the property to his own use
• ‘Misappropriation’ means that he has used the property for his own interest
Illustration (a)
“A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing,
at the time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty
of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the
property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.”

Illustration (b)
A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s house in Z’s absence and takes
away a book without Z’s express consent. Here, if A was under the impression
that he had Z’s implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

has not committed theft. But if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit,
he is guilty of an offence under this section.
Illustration (c)
“A and B being joint owners of a horse, A takes the horse out of B’s possession,
intending to use it. Here, as A has a right to use the horse, he does not
dishonestly misappropriate it. But if A sells the horse and appropriates the whole
proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.”

Case:
Tuan Puteh v. Dragon [1876]
The appellant found a cheque which was made payable to Captain Strong. He
took it to a bank but it was not cashed because it required Captain Strong’s
endorsement. The appellant argued that there had not been any conversion as
the cheque had not been cashed and pointed illustration (c) in s.403.
Held: The court rejected his argument. The accused was guilty although he did
not manage to appropriate the property (cheque) to his own on the basis that he
has dishonest intention’.

• ‘converts to his own use’ (conversion)

• Dishonest misappropriation for a short time is also a misappropriation under
this section.

DISHONEST MISSAPROPRIATION OF A DECEASED’S PROPERTY AT TIME OF

HIS DEATH

S.404 – any property that is in possession of the deceased at the time of his death
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

OTHER ISSUES ON PROPERTY MISSAPROPRIATION

Position of Lost Property under Law (terjumpa barang)

- Can we keep it? Can we use or sell it? What should we do?

FINDERS KEEPERS’ concept under PC

s. 403

Explanation 2

A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and takes such property
for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to the owner, does not take or
misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence
above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of
discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to
the owner, and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it

Illustrations (a) – (f)

(a) A finds a ringgit on the high road, not knowing to whom the ringgit belongs. A picks up the
ringgit. Here A has not committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A finds a letter on the high road, containing a bank note. From the direction and contents
of the letter he learns to whom the note belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an
offence under this section.

(c) A finds a cheque payable to bearer. He can form no conjecture as to the person who has lost
the cheque. But the name of the person who has drawn the cheque appears. A knows that this
person can direct him to the person in whose favour the cheque was drawn. A appropriates the
cheque without attempting to discover the owner. He is guilty of an offence under this section.

(d) A sees Z drop his purse with money in it. A picks up the purse with the intention of restoring
it to Z, but afterwards appropriates it to his own use. A has committed an offence under this
section.

(e) A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that
it belongs to Z, and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(f) A finds a valuable ring, not knowing to whom it belongs. A sells it immediately without
attempting to discover the owner. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

- Finders are not necessarily entitled to keep what they found (Parker v British Airways
Board)
- There is not dishonest intention (to cause wrongful loss or gain) if the accused takes the
item with the purpose of protecting it or restoring it for the owner.
- Key factors in determining the criminal liability:
i. The nature and value of the property in question
ii. Whether there are any identifying features to indicate the owner’s identity (exp:
a wallet containing ic)
iii. Whether the accused has made sufficient effort to trace the rightful owner and
has allowed time for the goods to be claimed before disposing them.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST

PROVISION – S.405

“Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property
either solely or jointly with any other person dishonestly misappropriates, or converts to his
own use, that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal
contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully
suffers any other person so to do....”

ELEMENTS

1. The existence of trust

The prosecutor must prove that the accused has been entrusted with a property or
entrusted with the dominion over that property.
(a) Any dominion over property
• Must prove that the dominion is a result of entrustment.
• Mere control is not sufficient.
• A person who has been entrusted with property, will have certain indications
towards its possession:
(i) He is responsible towards the property
(ii) Subject to the restrictions imposed to the trust
(iii) He is free to use the property in his own manner

But he does not have the same rights with the owner.

Sinnathamby v PP [1948-49]
The accused was an employee of the Public Works Department and charged for
CBT.
Held: Appeal against conviction is dismissed. By virtue of his contract of services,
the accused was in a position to exercise dominion over the stone from the Public
Works Department Quarry, and that in the particular circumstances if the present
case he did exercise that dominion prior to committing the breach of trust in respect
of the property over which he exercised it.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

(b) “In any manner”

• It is not compulsory that a trust must be as a result of a legal object.
R v Tan Ah Seng [1935]
The respondent received RM40 for the purpose of renting a house to be used
by some prostitutes and misappropriated it. He was charged for CBT.
The magistrate acquitted the accused without calling upon him for his
defence on the ground that the transaction was an illegal contract.
The high court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered that
the case be remitted to another magistrate to be tried on its merits.
Held: The court found that the law is clear that the money could be
recovered by the complainant at any time before the illegal purpose was
carried out. The court relied on the wording in s405 “whoever being in any
manner entrusted with property”, which is clearly wide enough to cover the
present case.

(c) “entrusted...either solely or jointly with any other person”

- Is a partner guilty for CBT for a joint property?
• India
Partner cannot be held responsible for CBT or misuse of property because
each partnerhas undivided share of the property
• Malaysia
Partners can be liable for CBT of joint property
Haji Sahid v Shaik Peroo (1875) and R v Lee Siong Kiat [1935]
Held: Partners can be found guilty of CBT.
Each partner has duty to act in good faith towards other partners and is
entitled to harbour trust that all partners will act likewise. Therefore, each
partner is entrusting the property under their partnership to all partners
within the meaning of “entrusted” as stated in s405. So, a partner can be
convicted of CBT if he dishonestly misappropriates the property under
partnership
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

2. Actus Reus (choose depending on facts of the case)

(a) “Misappropriates” or “converts”
• Misappropriates = set aside or to separate a property from its rightful owner
/ taking or using a property wrongfully but not necessarily for his own use
• Converts = illegally using or disposing the property of another person as if
it his own. /a property which originally intender for one purpose is later used
for one’s own purpose
(b) “uses or disposes of property in violation of any direction of law”
PP v Rengasamy [1974]
Held: Where a civil servant who has been entrusted with the keeping of Government
revenue has, for example, specific departmental regulation to keep the money. This
civil servant has infringed the regulation if he uses the money in a manner that is
contrary to the regulation.

Hj Maamor bin Hj Abdul Manap v PP [2002]

Augustine Paul J: CBT can be proved by showing that the act of the accused was in
violation of any direction of law or of any legal contract with regard to the use of
funds he had been entrusted
(c) “uses or disposes of property in violation of any legal contract”
• The violation must be in connection to a LEGAL contract, not an illegal
contract
PP v Yeoh Teck Chye [1981]
The accused was a bank manager who approved payment of a cheque of a
client which exceeded his overdraft facility.
The High court convicted the accused for criminal breach of trust because
he as a bank manager was entrusted with the dominion over the funds of the
bank. This was trust implied by law
In appeal, the federal court upheld conviction in HC, but stated that no law
governs or prescribes the manner in which the accused may dispose of the
funds of the bank entrusted to him as a manager. Neither was the accused
granted a power of attorney pertaining to granting of overdrafts as per his
contract of employment. However, the accused had violated the implied
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

legal contract governing the manner in which he was authorized to dispose

funds of the bank.

(d) “wilfully suffers any other person so to do”

• The court listed actus reus in PP v Yeoh Teck Chye [1981]:
(i) that (the accused) should … misappropriate or convert to his own
use, OR
(ii) use or dispose of the property or wilfully suffer any other person so
to do in violation of … any direction of law prescribing the manner
in which such trust is to be discharged, OR of any legal contract
made touching the discharge of such trust.
• If a boss who is entrusted with a client’s money, knows that his clerk has
misappropriated his client’s money but does not stop his clerk from doing
so, the boss can be convicted of CBT.

3. Mens rea (depends wording of each category of actus reus applied in case)
(a) “dishonestly
• Definition of ‘dishonestly in s.24
- To cause wrongful loss or gain to the owner/person with beneficial
interest over the property
• Must prove dishonest intention
Ratnalal and Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes
- Dishonest intention is the gist of the offence. Any breach of trust is not
an offence. It may be intentional without being dishonest or it may
appear dishonest without really being so.
• It is not dishonest intention if the accused bona fide believes that his claim
is legal, although it may not have any legal or factual basis or done without
permission.
Navaratnam v PP [1973]
The appellant was the officer-in-charge of the prison and in the capacity was
said to have been entrusted with the person’s belongings for safe keeping.
The defence raised by the appellant against the charge for CBT is that he
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

has utilized the money belonging to a prisoner to pay the prisoner’s counsel
who had agreed to act for the prisoner. His defence failed and he appealed.
FC HELD: his appeal was allowed bcs the prosecutor failed to dispute the
truth of the appellant’s statement. If there was any truth in the appellant’s
statement of his intention to pay the lawyer, then his taking of the money
did not become dishonest even if it was without the prisoner’s permission.
• In proving dishonest intention, it is not required to prove an intention to keep
the property permanently. An intention to deprive the owner of the property
for a certain period, is already sufficient.
Emperor v Tulsidas Chhaganlal [1906]
The accused had the duty and responsibility to deliver the money that he had
received immediately to the treasury but, instead he kept a small amount of
that money for a few months in violation of the regulation
Held: He was guilty of CBT

• Negligence is not dishonesty. Being negligent in handling property brings

to civil liability but not CBT.
PP v Mohamed bin Abdul Jabbar [1948-49]
The accused was a very careless man in taking care of the money that was
entrusted to him as a record officer. He was also found to be careless in his
admin work.
Held: He was acquitted from CBT because prosecutor failed to prove
dishonest intent on the part of accused. Laville J: the doctrine of criminal
negligence is not applied to negligence which resulted in the loss of trust
money by a person entrusted with it or misappropriation by others through
his negligence.

(b) “wilfully”
Yeow Fook Yuen & Ors v R [1964]
1st accused – was the honorary treasurer of a trade union. He was charged with
wilfully suffering the 2nd accused (the general secretary of the trade union) to
dishonestly misappropriate some of money from the union’s fund.
NURUL IMAN BINTI KHAIRUL ANWAR

2nd accused – he was the general secretary of the trade union. He was charged for
abetting with the CBT.
During the trial, both of them were found guilty and they appealed to the HC. The
ground for appeal is that so long as both appellants regarded these moneys as
advances or loans and bona fide believed them to be advances or loans, there was
no dishonest intention on the part of either of them.
Held: The court dismissed the ground of appeal. According to the judge, the real
question on the issue of dishonest is not the question of whether either appellant
bona fide believed these takings to be loans, but whether either appellant bona fide
believed that the first appellant had lawful authority to make these loans to the
second appellant.
• Required to prove mens rea for misappropriation or conversion etc for HIS
OWN use. If not proved, even if 3rd party did such acts, he is not guilty.

PUNISHMENT FOR CBT

S. 408 – punishment for CBT

➢ Imprisonment not exceeding 10 years + whipping, also liable to fine

S.407 – CBT by carrier

➢ Imprisonment 1-10 years + whipping, also liable to fine

S.408 – CBT by clerk or servant

➢ Imprisonment 1-14 years + whipping, also liable to fine

S.409 – CBT by public servant or agent

➢ Imprisonment 2-20 years + whipping, also liable to fine.

 RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

PROVISION OF OFFENCE - S.411

Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to
believe the same to be stolen property…”

MEANING OF STOLEN PROPERTY - s.410

(1) Property the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by
robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which
criminal breach of trust or cheating has been committed, is designated as “stolen property”,
whether the transfer has been made or the misappropriation or breach of trust or cheating has
been committed within or without Malaysia. But if such property subsequently comes into
the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen
property.

(2) The expression “stolen property” includes any property into or for which the same has
been converted or exchanged and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange
whether immediately or otherwise.

ELEMENTS

1. ACTUS REUS
• The act of ‘receiving’
Must prove that the accused had received or at the time he received the property
and that property was a stolen property
• The act of retention
Did the accused keep the stolen property?
- This ensures the conviction of people who still keep the property even after
finding out that it was stolen
 2. MENS REA
• Dishonesty
• Knowledge or having a reason to believe that the property was stolen
Meaning of ‘reason to believe’ in s.26
- “A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient
cause to believe that thing, but not otherwise.”

TEST from Koh Hak Boon v PP [1993]:

(i) Whether the accused had reason to believe, not merely suspect, that
the goods were stolen
Tan Ser Juay v PP
The accused had tried to arrange for the sale of 400 watches.
Held: The accused suspicions must have been aroused, but the law does
not permit convictions under mere suspicions.
If unable to fulfil (i);
(ii) Whether a reasonable person, in the position of the appellant would
have thought it was probable that the property was stolen.

DOCTRINE OF RECENT POCESSION (COMMON LAW)

If a person is found in possession of goods that were recently stolen, that is evidence, in
the absence of explanation to the contrary, that the person either stole the goods or
received them knowing to be stolen.

Evidence Act 1950 – s.114 Illustrations (a)

The court may presume—

(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has
received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;
PUNSIHMENT

S.411

➢ Imprisonment up to 5 years or fine or both.

➢ If stolen property is a motor vehicle or any components: Imprisonment 6 months – 5
years and also liable to fine

AGGRAVATED OFFENCES

S.412 - Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a gangrobbery

S.413 – Habitually dealing in stolen property (Berniaga harta curi)

S.414 - Assisting in concealment of stolen property (helps to hide stolen property

 MISCHIEF

PROVISION – S.425

“…with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the
public or any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any
property, or in the situation thereof, as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it
injuriously…”

EXPLANATION 1

It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or
damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause,
or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any
property, whether it belongs to that person or not

EXPLANATION 2

Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits
the act, or to that person and others jointly

ELEMENTS

1. MENS REA
• Intention and knowledge that the act was to cause wrongful loss, damage,
destruction of any property or diminishing its value.
• The accused must KNOW that the act of mischief would cause damage to a
person. It is irrelevant whether the accused intended to cause loss to the owner
or anyone else. Does not have to be directed to a specific person.
- Explanation 1

2. ACTUS REUS
• The act of mischief itself

CASE:

Jambulingam Pillai v Ponnaswami Pillai AIR 1939 400

Muharam bin Anson v PP [1981]

PUNISHMENT

S.426

➢ Imprisonment up to 5 years or fine or both

S.427 – Mischief that causes damage RM25 and above

➢ Imprisonment 1 – 5 years or fine or both

AGGRAVATED MISCHIEF

S.428 – mischief by killing or maiming any animal

s.430 - Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water

S.430A - Mischief affecting any public transportation

s.431 - Mischief by injury to public road, bridge or river

s.431A - Mischief by injury to telegraph cable, wire, etc.

s.432 - Mischief by causing inundation or obstruction to public drainage, attended with

damage

S.433 - Mischief by destroying or moving or rendering less useful a lighthouse or seamark,

or by exhibiting false lights

s.434 - Mischief by destroying or moving, etc., a landmark fixed by public authority

s.435 - Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of
fifty ringgit

s.436 - Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house, etc.

s.437 - Mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a decked vessel or a vessel of 20
tons burden

s.438 - Punishment for the mischief described in the last section when committed by fire
or any explosive substance
 CHEATING
Section 415
415. Whoever by deceiving any person, whether or not such
deception was the sole or main inducement,—
(a) fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would
not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation, or property,
is said to “cheat
Two categories of cheating
i. Whoever deceive any person
ii. With fraud or dishonestly causing someone to give any property to anyone or agree
to keep any property.
Only refer to S 415 (a). The punishment is under Section 420.
The second categories
i. Whoever deceive any person
ii. Intentionally causing someone left or did something with deceive action which that
action can not happen unless due to that deceive and cause loss to the victim. The
punishment is under Section 417 of Penal Code.

Element
1. Deceive any person
2. Causing someone send or give their property to any person
3. Causing someone that have been deceive agree to keep property
4. Causing someone that have been deceive did or left something which may likely
causing injuries or damage to body, reputation or property any person
5. With fraud or dishonestly.

1. Deceive any person

• There must be element of deceive. The victim must believe that deceive. The victim
believe that what is false or misleading as matter of fact/ leading into error)
• If the victim does not believe or know that the fact is false or not true, there is no
deceive. If there is no deceive, the offence is not complete. OKT only can convicted
with the attempt to cheat. If the victim know that the statement is not true but still act
as stated by the accused, the accused shall not guilty under Section 415 but only an
attempt to commit cheat.
• R v. Lim Cheng Soo [1946] MLJ 51
• Summary: The accused was concerned in a contract with one Joi Cheong Seah, whereby
the latter agreed to purchase 1,000 forged [dollar]1 notes for [dollar]388. The money
was paid, and a bundle with a couple of genuine notes on top was received by Joi
Cheong Seah. The rest of the bundle was found to be blank paper, and on these facts,
the accused was charged with cheating, an offence punishable under s 420 of the Penal
Code. The magistrate who originally heard the case stopped the case at an early stage
under s 182(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code, holding that as the agreement was
concerned with the purchase of forged notes, which was in fact an illegal transaction, it
could not be enforced in any civil court and could not therefore support a criminal
prosecution for cheating
• Held: a prosecution would lie for cheating in the course of a transaction to purchase
forged notes, if a party to the transaction is found to have committed it.

• Mohamad b. Rashid b. Kasdi v. PP [1969] 1 MLJ 135

• Summary: To sustain a charge of cheating there must be evidence of deception practised
upon a person who is thereby dishonestly induced to part with his money No hard and
fast rule can be laid down for determining the credibility or otherwise of a witness, but
when a witness gives or makes two statements which differ in material particulars there
must necessarily be ground for believing that he is not a truthful witness.
• Held: to sustain a charge of cheating, there must be evidence of deception practised upon
a person who is thereby dishonestly induced to part with his money. No hard and fast
rule can be laid down for determining the credibility or otherwise of a witness, but when
a witness gives or makes two statements which differ in material particulars, there must
necessarily be ground for believing that he is not a truthful witness.

• Eng Ah Kow v. PP [1966] 1 MLJ 146

• Summary: The appellant was originally charged in the sessions court, Kuala Lumpur as
follows:"That you on 1.6.65 at about 5.30 p.m. at room No. 506 Federal Hotel, in the
District of Kuala Lumpur, in the State of Selangor, attempted to cheat one Selvarasan
s/o Thampoe, and in such attempt did a certain act towards the commission of the said
offence to wit, by issuing him an account closed cheque from United Chinese Bank Ltd.
Hongkong bearing No. F. 68977 for HK. $3,200 and trying to induce him to give you
a sum of $600, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 420 and section 511 of the Penal C. "Counsel for the defence then raised certain
preliminary objections to the charge which, in the opinion of the president, were
unwarranted and therefore overruled. The trial was then adjourned to August 16, 1965,
on which date the prosecuting officer, applied for an amendment of the charge by
substituting "no balance of fund remained" for "account closed". The charge was
accordingly amended to read as follows
• Held: requiring money and asking for it per se is not cheating unless there was a dishonest
intention to cause wrongful loss
• According to explaination 1 Section 415, hiding any fact dishonestly is a deceive under
this section. If someone did not say something clear and true and that action with
dishonest intention is a cheating if the victim believe it as true
2.Proof of deceive
The public prosecution must prove
• The accused made false representation
• The accused know that the statement is not true
• The accused commit this offence with the intention to deceive the victim

3.Type of deceive
• Express
• Implied
Both can be committed whether
• Deceive with fraud
• S. 25 Penal Code define fraud as “ A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does
that thing with intend to defraud, but not otherwise”
• Deceive with dishonestly. Dishonestly Section 23 Penal Code and Section 24 Penal Code.
• Section 23 “Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person
gaining is not legally entitled.
• “Wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it
is legally entitled. A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains
wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose
wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when
such person is wrongfully deprived of property.
• Section 24 Dishonestly, 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”.
Explanation—In relation to the offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal
breach of trust it is immaterial whether there was an intention to defraud or to deceive
any person.

• Tan Peng Ann v. PP [1949] MLJ Supp 10.

• The appellant was convicted on two charges of cheating and dishonestly inducing the
delivery of property in contravention of s 420 of the Penal Code. In the charges, no
particulars were alleged of the way in which the appellant deceived the complainants.
• Held: (1) in framing such a charge, it is necessary to set out not merely the fact that
accused had obtained goods by dishonest means, but also the deception which has been
practised; (2) it is not every form of dishonestly inducing a person to deliver property
that amounts to cheating, but only those forms of it in which the dishonesty consists in
the deceiving of the person concerned.

• Low Cheng Swee v. PP [1941]MLJ 98.

• Summary: An accused was charged with cheating under S. 420 of the Penal Code by
dishonestly insuring his motor car with two insurance companies without disclosing to
either of such companies the fact that he had insured it with another Company and by
receiving from both companies moneys under the two policies
 • Held, on appeal: before non-disclosure can be deemed to be dishonest, it must be shown
that the accused knew that each company[rsquo ]s liability would be lessened by the
fact which he failed to disclose, and that non-disclosure would deceive and induce the
company to act to its detriment. Such knowledge had not been proved and could not be
assumed in a criminal case. No legal presumption arose that the accused had read and
was acquainted with the conditions of the policy of assurance and there was no
sufficient evidence of cheating

4.Send his property to any person

5.Causing someone agree to keep the property
King-Emperor v. Tha By Aw (1907)4 BLR 315.
“Whenever the words ‘fraud’ or ‘intent to defraud’ or ‘fraudulently’ occur in the
definition of crime, two elements at least are essential to the commission of the crime,
namely, first, deceit or an intention to deceive, or in some cases mere secrecy and
secondly either actual injury or possible injury or an intent to expose some person either
to actual injury or to a risk of possible injury by means of that deceit or secrecy”

6.Intentionally causing someone did or left to do anything which causing damage or

injuries to the victim
Baboo Khan v. State AIR 1961 639

7.Fraud and dishonestly

Cheating related cheque

Re D.C. Henry [1958] MLJ 224
Summary: In this case the accused was convicted of two charges of cheating. It was alleged
by the prosecution that the accused obtained goods from a shopkeeper and gave post-dated
cheques in payment which were subsequently dishonoured. The learned Magistrate found that
the accused must have known that he would not have funds in the Bank to meet the cheques
when they were due for presentation. He therefore convicted the accused and sentenced him to
six months’ imprisonment on each charge, such sentence to run concurrently. The accused had
no previous record

Held: the sentence imposed was excessive and in the circumstances of the case, the accused
should be unconditionally discharged under s 183(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 21).
Khoo Kay Jin v. PP [1964] MLJ 22
Summary: The appellant was convicted in the magistrate’s court at Penang of an offence of
cheating under s 417 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to a term of nine months’
imprisonment. The main grounds of appeal upon which the appeal was argued were that the
charge disclosed no offence, and that in any event, the evidence adduced for the prosecution
did not support or substantiate a charge under s 417 of the Penal Code. The charge read as
follows: ‘That you ... cheated one Teoh Eng Hoe by intentionally inducing the said Teoh Eng
Hoe to do something, to wit, to allow payment for radios and other goods, to the value of
[dollar]14,000 by post-dated cheques ... all of which were subsequently dishonoured instead of
payment in cash on delivery, which the said Teoh Eng Hoe would not do if he were not so
deceived, which caused damage to the property of the said Teoh Eng Hoe and that you thereby
committed an offence punishable under s 417 of the Penal Code’.

Aggravated Cheating
Cheat by personation
416. A person is said to “cheat by personation”, if he cheats by pretending to be some other
person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any
other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
Explanation—The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or
imaginary person.

The main element

1.A become someone else
2.A replace other person
3.A stated that he is not himself and other person also not himself too
4.Punishment-S. 419
Cheating dishonestly causing someone give the property
• Cheating the victim
• Dishonestly causing the vistim send his property
• Dishonestly causing someone to do or change or damaged precious or important
security (cagaran)

Punishment Section 420 of Penal Code.

 TRESPASS

Tresspass mean any action did by someone or any one entered any place own by other person
or any place, building, or house of other person. It happen when the action and intention against
law.

Criminal trespass
S. 441. Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit
an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property; or having
lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to
intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to
commit “criminal trespass.
Explaination
Criminal trespass happen when
i. Someone entered any property own by other people
ii. With the intention to do any offence or humiliate or causing worried to other person

The main element

i. Actus Reus
a. Entered into property own by someone
The accused know that the property is not own by him. He entered into any place
or any part of that property. When he entered and stay in or at the property, the
offence still not complete. The element intention still not fulfill or
b. Entered with a valid permit but stay against the law
The accused entered into an area or any part of that property and maybe with the permission of
the owner. There is no issues of trespass. However, when he in or use the property, the accused
have stayed against the law. If there is any terms that must be obey during the permission was
granted , the terms must be obeyed. If there is instruction stated that any person are not allowed
stay in that area after 12.00 a.m and if the accused still stayed at that place after the time ended,
there is complete actus reus.

ii. Mens rea

a. With the intention to commit any offence
The element of mens rea is important to determine whether the action entered and
stayed on or at the property complete an offence of criminal trespass.To convict the
accused, the prosecution must prove the mens rea when he entered to that property
or during he stayed at that place, intention the accused to commit an offence.
 Reg. V. Collins [1973]1 QB 100.
“under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 a person must enter either knowing that he is
trespassing, or acting recklessly as to whether he is a trespasser or not. For the
purposes of criminal liability an accused should be judged on the facts as he
believed them to be and this should include mistake as to his liabilities under civil
law. Due to the layout of the room it was possible that the defendant believed the
girl was inviting him inside when she put her arms around him”

b. Intention to create a fear, humiliate, causing worry to the owner of the property.
Must be other intention other than commit an offence
Abbas v. Tomby (1881)3 Ky 187
Sinnasamy v. R (1951) MLJ iii

T.Ponnamalan v. PP (1948) MLJ 76

Summary: On a charge for criminal trespass by remaining on the
complainant[rsquo ]s land [lsquo ]with intent to annoy[rsquo ], it was proved that
certain estate employees had threatened to strike. The manager gave them a
month[rsquo ]s notice and during its pendency they struck. He then dismissed them
summarily and ordered them to leave the premises within 24 hours. The manager
was within his rights to do so, but the employees did not realize this
Held: as they believed they were entitled to remain till the expiration of the
month[rsquo ]s notice, they did not remain [lsquo ]with intent to annoy[rsquo ]

Ong Eng Guan v. PP [1956] MLJ 44

Summary: The appellant in this case was an employee of the Singer Sewing
Machine Co. The complainant had bought a sewing machine on hire purchase and
had paid over two-thirds of the value of the machine. As however, he was late in
paying the balance of the instalments, the company decided to take possession of
the machine. On 14 April 1955, the appellant and two of his friends went to the
house of the complainant to collect the instalments due or alternatively to remove
the machine. They entered the house and a discussion took place as to payment of
the instalments. As no agreement was reached, the appellant went to a room where
the machine was kept, dragged it and took it away. The appellant was subsequently
charged and convicted under s 448 of the Penal Code of the offence of house
trespass with intent to annoy the complainant
Held: there was no evidence in this case that the appellant had an intention to annoy
the complainant, even though he may have succeeded in fact in doing so, and
therefore the conviction must be quashed

House-trespass
442. Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any
building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place
for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-
trespass”.

Explanation—The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body

is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

Housebreaking
445. A person is said to commit “house breaking”, who commits house-trespass if
he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways
hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of
committing an offence, or having committed an offence therein, he quits the house
or any part of it in any of such six ways:

(a) if he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the
house-trespass, in order to commit the house-trespass;

(b) if he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than
himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage
to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building;

(c) if he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-
trespass has opened, in order to commit the house-trespass, by any means by which
that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened;

(d) if he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to commit the house-trespass,
or in order to quit the house after a house-trespass;

(e) if he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an

assault, or by threatening any person with assault;

f) if he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against
such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor
of the house-trespass.
Explanation—Any outhouse or building occupied with a house and between which
and such house there is an immediate internal communication, is part of the house
within the meaning of this section.