KK Mart directors plead not guilty, supplier sued
SHAH ALAM: KK Supermart & Superstore Sdn Bhd Group founder and executive chairman Datuk Seri Dr Chai Kee Kan and his wife, Datin Seri Loh Siew Mui pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court here Tuesday to two counts of wounding the religious feelings of others over the sale of socks with the word Allah at the supermarket premises weeks ago.
Chai, 57, and Loh, 53, made the plea after the charges were read out to them before Judge Muhamad Anas Mahadzir.
Chai and Loh as directors of KK Supermart & Superstore Sdn Bhd were charged with deliberately intending to wound the religious feelings of Muslims by displaying the socks on the sales display rack of the supermarket and was seen by a 32-year-old man.
They were charged under Section 298 of the same law, with conspiring to commit the offence at KK Supermart & Superstore Sdn Bhd, Bandar Sunway, at 6.30 am last March 13.
They face imprisonment for up to a year or fine, or both if found guilty.
Chai, on behalf of the company, also pleaded not guilty to a similar charge.
The court allowed Chai and Loh bail of RM10,000 with one surety each.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Masri Mohd Daud prosecuted, while lawyer Datuk Rajpal Singh represented Chai and Loh.
Earlier, Rajpal Singh, in seeking the court to impose a low bail on his clients, said they were philanthropists and not flight risks.
“My client has around 5,000 employees in 810 branches among them in Malaysia, Nepal, India and Brunei,” he said.
Meanwhile, Soh Chin Huat, 61, his wife, Goh Li Huay, 62, and their daughter Soh Hui San, 36, who is a director of a distribution company Xin Jian Chang Sdn Bhd, pleaded not guilty to a charge of abetting in wounding the feelings of Muslims in the same incident.
They were charged with committing the offence at KK Supermart & Superstore Sdn Bhd, Bandar Sunway, at the same time and date.
Soh, who also represented the company (Xin Jian Chang Sdn Bhd), was also charged with a similar charge.
They were charged under Section 109 of the Penal Code read together with Section 298 of the same law and faced a maximum prison sentence of one year or a fine or both upon conviction.
The court allowed them bail of RM10,000 with one surety each and fixed April 29 for mention.
Lawyer Lau Yi Leong represented the three family members. The issue cropped up following a video and screenshot of the socks with the word Allah went viral through social media allegedly being sold at a convenience store, causing outrage among Muslims.
KK Supermart & Superstore Sdn Bhd also filed a lawsuit against Xin Jian Chang Sdn Bhd and Soh on Tuesday over alleged breach of contract and sabotage after the company was supplied with socks bearing the word “Allah” without its knowledge.
KK Supermart filed the lawsuit through Messrs David Gurupatham & Koay at the Shah Alam High Court, naming Soh and his company as first and second defendants.
Lawyer Datuk David Gurupatham, representing KK Supermart confirmed the filing when contacted by Bernama, stating that his client is seeking RM1.5 million in compensation over the loss of income, RM10,500 for damage caused to the company’s brand name, RM20.3 million for the company’s aborted proposed stock market listing, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages and other relief deemed reasonable by the court.
KK Supermart has also applied for a prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from further causing losses by way of unlawful interference to its business.
The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff showed that KK Supermart and both defendants signed an agreement to supply products for sale on consignment at its premises, subject to the contract’s terms and conditions.
The plaintiff alleges that on Feb 5, the second defendant requested permission from the plaintiff to supply arm covers, which was allowed on good faith but was not notified or informed that the barcode of this product would be used for the sale of socks bearing the word “Allah” at its premises.
Based on the plaintiff’s record, the defendant had placed the socks at the premises without being supervised by the store’s workers as only a cashier was on duty and alleged that the defendant had deliberately sabotaged its business and destroyed its reputation, which resulted in a boycott and negative comments from the public. — Bernama