BALIK PULAU: Penang executive councillor Fahmi Zainol has claimed trial to a charge of causing hurt to his wife at a house last week.
The state agrotechnology, food security and cooperative development committee chairman pleaded not guilty after the charge was read before Magistrate Chia Huey Ting yesterday at the Balik Pulau Magistrate’s Court here.
Based on the charge sheet, the 35-year-old Pantai Jerejak assemblyman is accused of intentionally injuring his wife Nur Hidayah Abd Jabar, also 35, at a house in Persiaran Pantai Jerejak 11, Bayan Lepas, at about 10pm on Feb 22.
The charge was framed under Section 323 of the Penal Code, read together with Section 326A of the Penal Code.
Section 323 carries a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment, a fine of up to RM2,000, or both, upon conviction.
Section 326A states that any person who hurts his spouse shall be punished with imprisonment for up to twice the term prescribed under Section 323.
Penang prosecution director Datuk Nazran Mohd Sham led the prosecution, assisted by deputy public prosecutors Ikmal Afandi Zulkifli and Lim Jin Hong.
Fahmi was represented by lawyer Dr Shamsher Singh Thind.
Nazran proposed bail at RM5,000, but Shamsher requested for a lower amount, citing that bail was meant to ensure court attendance and that his client had given his full cooperation.
Chia allowed bail at RM2,000 with one surety and fixed April 28 for mention and submission of documents.
Earlier, Shamsher had requested for the court to rule on whether the charge remained valid, as he had filed a notice of objection.
He referred to Section 260(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for the effect of compoundable offences, whether proceedings had commenced or were ongoing.
If the offence had been compounded, there would be no necessity to proceed with prosecution, as the matter would be deemed settled and the accused discharged, he said.
“At this stage, if the victim has forgiven the alleged offender, the offence would have been compounded and no party could be charged again after discharge.
“I therefore request the court to rule first on whether the charge can be read.
“I seek for the objection to be allowed and the charge to be set aside,” he said.
Nazran said the case involved an offence under Section 326A of the Penal Code, which was not a compoundable offence.
“This issue is significant as it concerns whether Section 326A falls within the category of offences that may be settled by way of compounding.
“The offence under this section has its own distinct characteristics and cannot be equated with other offences that may qualify for compounding,” he said.
The court dismissed the defence’s application and allowed the charge to be read.
