Magistrates' Court in Ipoh dismisses theft charge over employer’s cordless drill

The Magistrates' Court in Ipoh dismissed the theft charge against Farid Azman, rejecting the Public Prosecutor’s request for a conviction over the removal of a cordless drill belonging to his employer Elaine’s business. The court found that Farid carried the drill out after closing, but held that the prosecution had not proved dishonest intent to the required criminal standard.

Farid was not found guilty on the available record. No payment or compensation was ordered, as the court found no established basis or amount for such an award.

The court distinguished proof that Farid removed the drill from proof of his state of mind. Under the rules supplied for the proceeding, the prosecution had to establish each required element through reliable evidence; accusation or suspicion was insufficient.

Elaine’s presented account supported both the removal and her assertion that she had not given permission that evening. However, the court noted that repeated exhibits contained the same account, rather than separate independent observations, and that Elaine had not given admitted testimony beyond that presented account.

Nadia Rahman’s admitted eyewitness testimony independently supported the finding that Farid left Elaine’s shop area carrying a cordless drill. She had heard no discussion about permission and could not say whether the removal was authorised. Her evidence also did not support the suggestion that Farid tried to avoid being seen or heard.

A WhatsApp screenshot from 10 June showed an earlier authorised loan. The court treated it as context for Farid’s claimed belief, not proof of permission on 18 June. A later reply described by Farid was not produced and was not treated as verified evidence.

There was no evidence establishing whether Farid subsequently returned or kept the drill. The court also found that allegations of flight, personal use or an intention to keep it were not independently established. His earlier practice of asking before borrowing and the after-closing removal did not resolve the issue of dishonesty.

The court does not require Farid to prove that he had permission; the burden remains with the prosecution.

The prosecution argued that Farid took the drill after closing without prior agreement or notice, departing from his earlier practice of asking before borrowing. It relied on Elaine’s account and Nadia’s observation of him carrying the drill.

Farid’s defence submitted that removal alone did not establish an intention to steal. It acknowledged that the 10 June screenshot concerned a different occasion and that the alleged later reply could not be offered as verified proof, but argued that the earlier loan provided context for his claimed belief that borrowing was permitted.

During Nadia’s examination, the defence objected to a question suggesting Farid had tried to remain unseen or unheard. The court sustained the objection, limiting the witness to what she had observed rather than an inference about his purpose.

The dispute arose from the removal of a cordless drill from Elaine’s Ipoh repair shop after closing on 18 June. Elaine had previously lent Farid the drill, but maintained that she had not authorised its collection that evening.

Although the prosecution described the drill as worth more than RM300, the court found no independent valuation supporting that amount. No monetary award was sought or supported in the criminal disposition.

The dismissal rests on the failure to prove dishonest intent, not on a finding that Farid had permission. The outcome therefore leaves the disputed authorisation unresolved while denying the requested theft conviction on the evidence before the court.