KK Mart founder and executive chairperson Chai Kee Kan and his wife, Loh Siew Mui, who are facing two counts of intentionally wounding the religious feelings of others over the recent socks controversy, will submit a representation to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).
Their lawyer, Rajpal Singh informed the court that he would file the representation, after studying the documents obtained from the prosecution today.
“We request that a mention date be fixed because the defence will file a representation,” he said when the case was mentioned before Shah Alam Sessions Court judge Muhamad Anas Mahadzir.
On March 26, Chai and Loh (above), as directors of KK Mart, pleaded not guilty to the charge of intentionally wounding the religious feelings of others over the sale of socks bearing the word Allah on a display, as seen by a 32-year-old customer.
They were charged with committing the offence at an outlet in Bandar Sunway, at 6.30am on March 13, and the charge was framed under Section 298 of the Penal Code, which provides for a prison sentence of up to a year or a fine, or both.
Xin Jian Chang’s case
Earlier, deputy public prosecutor Khairul Azreem Mamat said the prosecution would provide the defence with the documents related to the case today, in addition to requesting that the case be tried together with the case involving the directors of the distribution company Xin Jian Chang Sdn Bhd.
“The prosecution requested that these cases be tried together, in accordance with Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and I believe that the defence does not object. The prosecution also requested that the trial date be fixed,” he said, and the defence confirmed the matter.
Also present at the proceedings was lawyer Lau Yi Leong representing Xin Jian Chang directors Soh Chin Huat, Goh Li Huay, and Soh Hui San.
Soh, 61, and Goh, 62, and their daughter Hui San, 36, were charged with conspiring to intentionally wound the religious sensitivities of Muslims in the socks issue at the same place, time and date.
They were charged under Section 109 of the Penal Code, read with Section 298 of the same law, which provides for a maximum prison sentence of one year or a fine, or both.
The court then set June 10 for case management to find out the status of the representation.
When met by the media outside the court, Rajpal said the defence would submit the representation soon but has not yet decided whether it would be to withdraw the charge or there would be an alternative charge.
- Bernama
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.