Ex-district officer gets longer jail term for outraging staff’s modesty

PUTRAJAYA: Regarding the offence committed as serious, the Court of Appeal here yesterday increased the jail term passed on a former Seberang Perai Tengah district officer from six months to 12 months for outraging the modesty of a female staff.

The three-man bench chaired by Justice Datuk Wira Mohtarudin Baki increased the jail term on Roslan Yahaya, 57, after allowing the appeal by the prosecution which was dissatisfied with the sentence by the lower court.

Justice Mohtarudin who sat together with Justices Datuk Yaacob Md Sam and Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, said the panel unanimously found the prosecution’s appeal to have merit, hence the appeal was allowed.

“The decision of the Magistrate’s Court is wholly set aside and replaced with a 12-month jail term and the fine be returned. As the respondent has already served six months in prison, he needs to serve another six months effective from yesterday.

“The offence committed is serious and the court needs to send a clear message,” said Justice Mohtarudin who announced the decision after hearing submissions from deputy public prosecutor Adam Mohamed and lawyer Muhammad Nor Izzat Nordin, representing Roslan.

After the Court of Appeal made its decision, Roslan’s wife and a family member were seen to be in tears.

The prosecution had appealed against the decision of the Penang High Court in 2017 to uphold the six months’ jail term and RM2,000 fine imposed by the Bukit Mertajam Magistrate’s Court on April 1, 2016 on Roslan after he was found guilty of outraging the modesty of the 29-year-old woman.

Roslan was charged with using criminal force on the married woman to outrage her modesty. The offence was committed in his office room at the Seberang Perai Tengah District and Land Office in Jalan Betek, Sungai Rambai, Bukit Mertajam between 11am and 1.10pm on April 26, 2010.

The offence under Section 354 of the Penal Code provides for a jail term of up to 10 years, or with fine or whipping, or with any two of such punishments.

Earlier, DPP Adam submitted that the High Court had failed to fully consider public interest in sentencing the respondent as the offence was serious.

“In this case, a full hearing was conducted and the respondent did not plead guilty while the personal interest of the respondent should not be above public interest as a basis for sentence to be meted out,” he said.

Adam said this case involved a district officer who took advantage of his subordinate whose position had not been confirmed yet and the incident happened in his (respondent) office room. - Bernama