Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

FOLLOWING a dispute between two or more parties, an individual may stand in front of the car of another. If the car moves forward, it will knock down the person standing if he does not move.

Few would think that standing in such a manner could amount to an offence. However, if the laws are referred to, in particular the Penal Code, there is a section that deals with the subject of wrongful restraint and confinement.

Section 339 of the Penal Code provides that: “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person, so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person”.

Section 341 of the Penal Code goes on to state: “Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with a fine which may extend to one thousand ringgit or with both”.

Can it be said that based on the facts stated, it would be an offence for a person who has a grievance to stand in front of the car driven by another person against whom the grievance exists? Of course, anyone can make a police report. The police, on the other hand, certainly have the power to commence an investigation and call up the party involved to make a statement. However, all those who are involved either already know or need to know what the actual offence is all about. There are various aspects to the offence in question.

It has been said that wrongful restraint implies abridgement of the liberty of a person against his will. Thus where a person is deprived of his willpower by sleep or otherwise, he cannot while in that condition, be subjected to any restraint.

When the Section is looked at further, the words “voluntarily” and “person” have to be carefully considered. The definition of the word “voluntarily” bears resemblance to the definition of “wilfully” current in English Law.

With regard to the word “person”, in ordinary language it includes a human being (natural person) or a corporation (artificial person). However, the offence would only apply to a natural person.

Another part in the section that needs to be analysed is “from proceeding”. The person who claims to be restrained cannot be said to be so restrained if it is possible for him to avoid the restraint but he chooses not to do so. Thus there would certainly be restraint if a person is confined to a particular place or is blocked from proceeding in any direction. Merely standing in front of the car would, in the absence of other factors, not necessarily be a restraint.

On the other hand, it may well be that the person claiming to be restrained is not “walled in” and he is in an open space. But he may yet be restrained because the person standing in front of him may be holding a gun and telling him that if he moves, he will be shot.

Yet another aspect is that when a person stands in front of a car, the driver could actually knock into him. Of course, he must be prepared to justify his action. An ordinary person standing in front of a car cannot with his bare hands or body restrain a car.

It would be different if the person, instead of just standing in front of the car, uses a bigger and stronger vehicle to restrain the car whose owner claims he is being restrained. This is on the assumption that the other ingredients of the offence are met.

But even then, if the person who claims to be restrained can get out of the car and go where he wants to, he is not restrained. He may perhaps claim additional expenses in proceeding to where he wanted to go but it is a matter of claiming expenses and not an offence punishable under Section 341 of the Penal Code.

What needs to be considered is the reason why the person is standing in front of the car. It could be that he is of unsound mind. In that case, it would be a defence because the offence requires the element of act and intention. A person who does not know what he is doing, cannot be said to be acting intentionally.

On the other hand, the person doing so may have an explanation or a reason. It may be that there are items belonging to him that he wants to get back. Or it may be that he has a family member whom he wants to meet or talk to.

Thus the facts of a particular situation need to be looked at. These have to be examined and considered. Just because someone stands in front of a car does not mean that an offence has been committed under Section 341 of the Penal Code.

More often than not, such a situation arises out of differences or disputes of a domestic nature. Even if a police report is made, the police may not want to pursue the matter. They may leave it to the parties to resolve the problem themselves.

However, there are instances in which the complainant may be well-connected or be a police personnel himself. In such a case, the person complained against may be called in to provide a statement or he may even be charged in court, irrespective of the outcome. This can happen.

But even if an offence is commited, the court will in sentencing the accused take into account the surrounding facts.