The document discusses the legal liability of the accused (a) for the offense of receiving stolen property as per Section 411 of the Penal Code. It outlines that for liability to be established, the property must be proven as stolen, and the accused must have knowledge or reason to believe it was stolen. The conclusion states that a can indeed be held liable for the offense if these criteria are met.

1. STOLEN PROPERTY
The parties involve are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. Then, the issue here is
whether B can be held liable for offence of receiving stolen property as defined under Section 411 of
the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for the act committed.
LAW PRINCIPLE
Section 411 provides that whoever dishonestly receives any stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term that may be extended to 5 years and also be liable with fine.
In order to determine the criminal liability of A, the elements of this offence must be
established.
Firstly, the property concerned must be stolen property. Section 410 outline stolen property
as any property that had transferred through by theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation
or criminal breach of trust is a stolen property but if the property comes into the possession of a
legally entitled person thus the property ceases to be stolen property. However, the court in the
case of Goh Khiok Phiong v R stated that if the property is not obtained by any of the offences stated
in section 410, or the absence of evidence that the property is stolen, the property would not be
stolen property.
Secondly, the accused must know or has reason to believe that the property is stolen .
Knowledge is the highest degree of speculative faculty and consists of the perception of the truth
the affirmative or negative propositions. Section 26 defines ‘reason to believe’ as sufficient cause to
believe a thing, but not otherwise. Then, in the case of Tang Kee Poh v PP, the court held that the
prosecution must prove that the accused has knowledge or had reason to believe the property was
stolen. However, in Samad Khamis, the oil was sold at very cheap price, the court held then the
accused had a reason to believe that it was stolen as the price were unreasonable.
APPLICATION
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, A may be held liable for offence of receiving stolen property as defined under
Section 411 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for the act committed.