Kisah - kisah pornografi di Malaysia (18sx)

kudapadi

edited

kudapadi

Kes Pramugara Terlampau: Mohd Rizal bin Mat Yusuf v Pendakwa Raya (Malaysia)
January 21, 2010 The Mathematical Theory of Nothing Leave a comment Go to comments

[2008] MLJU 0883

Malayan Unreported Judgments
Mohd Rizal bin Mat Yusuf v Pendakwa Raya
HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO 42-2-2005
DECIDED-DATE-1: 22 DECEMBER 2008
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN, JC
JUDGMENTBY: NALLINI PATHMANATHAN, JC

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

On 17 December 2004 Mohd. Rizal bin Mat Yusof (‘Rizal’) was found guilty of making and distributing an obscene video compact disc (‘VCD’) in contravention of section 292(a) of the Penal Code. As a consequence, he was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment in the Sessions Court. He appeals against this decision.

At the outset of the case in the Sessions Court, three charges were preferred against Rizal. However at the close of the prosecution case, the learned Sessions Court judge decided that the prosecution had only made out a prima facie case in respect of the first alternative charge preferred against him. The first alternative charge reads as follows on translation into English:-

“That you, between the year 1999 until May 2003, at No. 12,
Jalan Sri Banang, Taman Sri Andalas, Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan did
make one video compact disc that contains obscene sex scenes with the
purpose of distributing/circulating the said VCD to the public and as
such you have committed an offence under section 292(a) of the Penal
Code which is punishable under the same section.”

Section 292(a) of the Penal Code in turn reads as follows:-

Whoever -

(a)   sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any
manner puts into circulation, or for the purposes
of sale, hire, distribution, public
exhibition or circulation makes, produces or has in
his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing,
painting representation or figure or any other obscene
object whatsoever;…

(b)   …

(c)   …

(d)   …

(e)   …

Shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years, or with fine or with both, (emphasis mine).

Preliminary Issue

At the outset of the appeal, learned counsel for Rizal, Mr. Rakhbir Singh who appeared in the Court below, raised a point of law that had not been raised in the Sessions Court. He contended that section 292(a) of the Penal Code was not applicable in this case, in that video compact discs or film material of any nature did not fall within the definition of an ‘obscene object’ in section 292(a) of the Penal Code. The offence, it was contended, would properly fall within the purview of section 5 of the Film Censorship Act 2002, but this Act only came into force in February 2002, while the facts of the instant case and the charges against Rizal were made in 1999. The predecessor to the Film Censorship Act 2002, namely the Cinematograph Films (Censorship) Act 1952 (revised 1971) which was in force in 1999, did not have a section corresponding to section 5 of the Film Censorship Act 2002, merely providing that possession’ of an obscene film would amount to an offence. To that extent it was submitted, there was no offence committed by Rizal, as the making or production of an obscene film or video cassette recording did not fall within the purview of section 292(a) or any of the provisions of the Cinematograph Films (Censorship) Act 1952.

In support of the contention that a video compact disc carrying the film in question would not fall within the definition of ‘any object whatsoever’ in section 292 of the Penal Code, learned counsel for Rizal cited Lim Hock Thai v Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 LNS 97 , a decision of the High Court of Brunei, which in turn made reference to the Malaysian case of Public Prosecutor v Tee Tean Siong & 8 Ors. [1963] 1 MLJ 201 . In the latter case, nine persons who attended the screening of an obscene film were arrested as they were trying to escape when the police raided the premises. They were convicted by the Magistrate of committing an offence under section 292 (a). Harun Hashim J., quashed the decision of the Magistrate on revision, holding that the mere attendance at a screening of an obscene film could not amount to a contravention of section 292 (a). In the course of his judgment His Lordship had occasion to comment on section 292(a) of the Penal Code:-

‘ Section 292 of the Penal Code deals with matters contained in
the Obscene Publications Act. Whether a film can be included in the
term “Publication” as normally understood is another aspect
to be considered. The Control of Imported Publications now defines
“publication” to include” any visible representation,
any recording of any cinematograph film….” But the definition of
the same word in the Undesirable Publications Ordinance, 1949 would
appear to be narrower and limited to what is generally understood to
fall within the term “publication”, namely printed or written
matter. If there is no offence then under the Penal Code is there an
offence under any other law?

Section 24, Cinematograph Ordinance (No. 76 of 1952) can clearly be
invoked and with far less onus on the prosecution (other than proof of
possession) – for the obscenity or lewdness of the film will easily be
satisfied by screening it to the Court — and it will be noted that it
provides for a fine not exceeding $ 1000, or imprisonment not
exceeding six months or both as compared with section 292 of the Penal
Code where punishment is imprisonment not exceeding three months or
fine or both. The exhibitor has sufficient possession to be caught
under this section, as well as a person in mere possession. Destruction
or disposal will, however, require the direction of the Minister …

… In my view, therefore, ‘blue films’ should not be
charged under section 292(a) or section 109 and section 292(a) but
under section 24 of Ordinance No. 76 of 1952 …”

Section 292(a) was clearly inapplicable in the foregoing case, where the nine men who were arrested and charged under the section were mere spectators of the obscene film. However Harun Hashim J. went further to state that section 292(a) did not extend to film material or ‘blue films’ as he called them, but was restricted to printed or written matter, on the premise that the section deals only with matters contained in the Obscene Publications Act. Accordingly, he decided, it was not clear that ‘publications’ in that context included film material.

This view was adopted in Lim Hock Thai v Public Prosecutor (above) where the facts were that Lim, the appellant, was charged with the possession of obscene video cassette tapes for the purpose of hire. Following upon and adopting what was said by Harun Hashim in Public Prosecutor v Tee Tean Siong & 8 Ors. (above) Zimmern J. held that if the publication of obscene films should not be charged under section 292(a) of the Penal Code, then neither should video tapes fall within the purview of the section, particularly as “… for a film at least can be seen against lighting but a video tape is opaque …” Earlier on in his judgment the learned judge examined what was meant by the words ‘or any other obscene object whatsoever’. He determined that those words could not apply to a video cassette tape for the following reasons:-”… The section prohibits publication of any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation, or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever. It is clear that all particular items set out are objects in themselves otherwise the word “other” would not appear in the general words. The words “object” means in this context a material thing and the attribute of the material thing is that it has to be obscene by reason of the governing adjective. The material things or object complained of was a video cassette tape “

The Magistrate had concluded that the video tape cassette in issue was obscene and that it therefore fell within the purview of the words ‘any other obscene object’ whatsoever. The learned Judge however disagreed with this decision stating as follows:-

“…With respect I cannot agree with him. What he saw which was
obscene was not the tape but the picture on a T. V. screen reproduced
by means of inserting the tape on to a video tape recorder connected to
a T. V. set. In my view the words of the section are so plain that no
aid to construction is required. Under the section for an object to be
obscene it has to be so to the very sight or upon reading. If it were
otherwise such as in the case of a video tape then every author, artist
sculptor capable of writing or producing an obscene book, drawing of
figure is also an obscene object. I am unable to strain the language of
the section to meet the justice of this case. In taking this view I am
fortified by the judgment of Hashim J. in Public Prosecutor v
Tee Tean Siong & Ors. (supra) “

kudapadi

What then is the position in law? Can it be said on the basis of the two cases above that the words ‘or any other object whatsoever’ in section 292(a) does not cover video compact discs which store visual images and reproduce them when they are played?

Section 292(a) of the Penal Code is in pari materia with section 292 (2) (a) of the Indian Penal Code. The section therefore takes root from the equivalent section in the Indian Penal Code. This section was inserted in the Indian Penal Code in 1925 and was introduced into the Indian Penal Code by the Obscene Publications Act, 1925 to give effect to Article 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Circulation of Traffic In Obscene Publications, (see Ratanlal Vol. I, Chapter XIV). From the foregoing it is evident that the object of the provision was to stop the circulation and traffic in obscene literature. Are the words ‘or any other object whatsoever’ then to be restricted to publications only, such that films or visual recordings of an obscene nature are not caught by this provision of the Code? At the time of the insertion of this section in the Indian Penal Code, and its introduction in our Penal Code, video compact discs were not in existence. Does it therefore follow that the section has to be read restrictively so as to encompass only objects or items which would fall within the purview of a ‘publication’?

To my mind there is nothing in the section which warrants such a specific and express restriction being imposed on the words ‘or any other object whatsoever’. Those words, particularly the word ‘whatsoever’ signifies that the word ‘object’ is to be construed widely and to include all manner and variety of objects that are obscene.

In any event, films and visual recordings are not exempt from this section in India. In Raj Kapoor v Laxman (1980) SC 175 the Supreme Court of India considered the complaint lodged against, interalia, the distributor of a film under section 292(a) of the Indian Penal Code. The film had in fact, prior to this, been approved by the Central Board of Film Censors under the Indian Cinematograph Act. Despite this, a prosecution was brought under section 292(a) of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis that it was obscene. The Supreme Court eventually quashed the prosecution on the grounds that it had been certified by the official film censorship body and could therefore be viewed and distributed to the public at large. In other words it was determined that the film was not obscene.

However in reaching this finding the Court made it clear that the mere fact that the censorship board had approved a film did not mean that it could not violate section 292(a). In so concluding it is evident that the Supreme Court in India considered that ‘films’ and visual recordings would fall within the definition of ‘any object whatsoever’ in section 292(a) of the Penal Code. (See also Rosaiah B 1991 Cri LJ 189(AP) where a spectator of blue films could not be prosecuted for abetting the main offence under this section because it could not be established that he had intentionally exhibited or arranged for exhibition of the film; and Prim CT AIR (1961) 1 Cri LJ 371 (Cal). where there was no offence under this section by a person viewing an obscene film on television using a Video Cassette Recorder because the visual recording was not for sale, hire, public exhibition or circulation. In both these cases, the visual recordings clearly fell within the definition of ‘any object whatsoever’.)

For these reasons, it appears to me that the words ‘any object whatsoever’ is sufficiently wide to include visual recordings such as are contained in a video compact disc. I refer to the Brunei case of Lim Hock Thai v Public Prosecutor (above) where the learned judge held that the object has to be ‘obscene’ to the very sight or upon reading and that therefore a video cassette recording which could only be viewed after it had been played and transmitted onto a television screen could not be described as an obscene object on sight. With the greatest of respect, I am unable to adopt the reasoning in that case, as any book, or pamphlet that is produced for circulation, may not on sight appear to be obscene, yet could amount to a contravention of the section. This occurs when a mere portion of the book or publication is obscene. Therefore the book or publication may not, on sight appear to be obscene. This will only become apparent if it is read in full. Similarly a video cassette recording or a video compact disc may not appear on the face of it to be obscene but its contents, evident upon playing, may well reveal obscene content. Just as a book has to be read in order to ascertain its content, so too has a visual recording to be played in order for it to be seen, so as to ascertain its content. The fact that it has to be played on another object 8 does not make the video cassette recording or video compact disc any less an object. It is simply required that the object in question containing the visual recording has to be played on another object in order for its content to be visible. In short can it be reasonably argued that a video compact disc with obscene visual recordings on it is not an obscene object, even when it is played? Or does the fact that it has to be played in order to be perceived, remove it from the category of ‘obscene objects’? In both cases, the answer is no. For these reasons, it appears to me that the words ‘any other object whatsoever’ encompasses video compact discs.

As for the contention that the Film Censorship Act 2002 exists specifically to cater for films of an obscene or lewd nature, it does not follow irrefutably that prosecution under the Penal Code under the provisions of section 292(a) is thereby precluded. The Penal Code is a general statute while the Film Censorship Act 2002 is a makes more specific provision for films. The fact that it provides for obscene films does not mean that the Penal Code does not. This preliminary point is therefore determined in favour of the Respondent, the prosecution. The prosecution is properly brought under section 292(a) of the Penal Code.

kudapadi

The Salient Facts

In 1999 Rizal was an air steward or flight attendant with Malaysian Airlines System (‘MAS’) who worked inter alia, on international flights. It is not in dispute that in 1999 he had a sexual relationship with SP-1 who was a fellow air stewardess. It is also not in dispute that Rizal recorded visual images of SP-1 at various times in different places, including their sexual activities, on more than one occasion, in Brisbane and at his home at Jalan Andalas. At all times Rizal used his own video camera and SP-1 consented to such recordings. SP-1 was wearing her MAS uniform during some of these recordings. When SP-1 questioned Rizal as to the reason for such recordings, he told her that they were 9 for his own viewing and that the film/visual recording would be destroyed after it had been viewed. The relationship between SP-1 and Rizal eventually ended when SP-1 learned that Rizal was married. She asked him whether the tape recording of their sexual activities had been destroyed, at which point Rizal threw a tape onto the floor. At this point, SP-1 stormed out and therefore never had the occasion to ascertain whether the tape had in fact been destroyed or even if the tape that had been thrown on the floor was the relevant tape. SP-1 however testified that she understood that the tape was not meant to get into any third party’s hands and that Rizal had said that he would destroy it.

In or around March or April 2003, SP-1 was called up by the management personnel at MAS who informed her that compromising pictures of her were available on the Internet. Several weeks later, SP-1 was informed by MAS that recordings of her sexual activities on a video compact disc were available in the local market. These recordings were the recordings that Rizal had earlier made as described above.

The video compact disc referred to which has given rise to this prosecution against Rizal did not only contain recordings of his acts with SP-1. Additionally there are visual recordings and images of Rizal with other females including his wife. By his own admission Rizal admits that he personally recorded on a video cassette tape, scenes from a trip to Brisbane, the MAS Academy and at his home with SP-1. He labeled this video cassette tape ‘Brisbane’. He also recorded, with his wife, sex scenes in a hotel in Narita, Japan and at home, and with two other females in a friend’s apartment, which he labeled ‘Wife’. It was never in dispute that Rizal had personally recorded these scenes, using a video camera. Rizal did not record these visual images on a video compact disc but a video cassette tape.

However the VCD or video compact disc which is the subject matter of this prosecution contains, in addition to the scenes above, several other scenes depicting sexual acts between unknown parties. There are up to five unidentified or unknown parties who appear on the visual recording in the VCD or video compact disc. They have no connection with Rizal. The video compact disc is entitled ‘Kehidupan Seorang Pramugara Yang Terlampau’ and has a cover with a picture depicted on it.

One Loh Kim Fatt, SP-6 gave evidence that he was selling VCDs in April 2003, when his business premises were raided by the police. They found that he was selling obscene VCDs including the one entitled ‘Kehidupan Seorang Pramugara Yang Terlampau’ that is the subject matter of prosecution in the instant case. SP-6 testified that he had obtained the subject VCD entitled ‘Kehidupan Seorang Pramugara Yang Terlampau’ from a Chinese man called ‘Gemuk’. There was no further identification nor was ‘Gemuk’ called to testify.

Detective Superintendant Mohd. Noor bin Ahmad, SP-11, is an analyst in the Audio Video and Photograph Department of the Forensic Division of the Polis DiRaja Malaysia in Cheras, Selangor. He testified that upon analysis, the VCD in issue was from one or more video cassette tapes. It was probable that the visual recordings in the VCD had been edited because there were sequences of pictures that appeared at an early stage of the recordings and which then appeared again subsequently near the end of the recording. This indicated that it had been edited.

kudapadi

More significantly, SP-11 also explained that in order for the images recorded on a video cassette recorder to be transferred to a video compact disc or a VCD, the process involved transferring the image to a computer, saving it in a programme, editing it if necessary and then from that programme, transferring it to a video compact disc using a Compact Disc writer or CD writer as it is commonly called, to ‘burn’ the image onto the VCD. The equipment required in 11 order to effect this process includes a computer, CD writer and specific connection/connecting cables. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, no such equipment was produced in evidence.

The Investigating Officer, Assistant Superintendant Muniandy a/I Ramasamy, SP-13 stated in evidence that the VCD in issue was not made by Rizal and that the video cassette recordings on which parts of the VDC was based were also not in Rizal’s possession.

The foregoing are the salient facts in relation to the prosecution case. On, inter alia the above facts, the learned Sessions Court concluded that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, and went on to call the accused to make his defence against the charge preferred against him.

The Defence

Rizal in his defence explained that when he was working as a flight steward for MAS in 1999, he often took along a video handy camera and the requisite film for the camera namely video tape cassettes, on his flights for his personal use. There was no prohibition against this in his rules of employment.

Rizal also admitted that he was the actor in scenes on the film with SP-1. He explained that in 1999 he had a relationship with SP-1. His wife, SD-2 discovered this fact when she watched the recording of SP-1 and Rizal. She delivered an ultimatum to Rizal who broke off his relationship with SP-1, during the course of which SP-1 asked him what he had done with the recording of the two of them. He then threw the video cassette tape containing those scenes onto the floor in front of her, promising to destroy it. SP-1 left without the tape.

Rizal however, did not destroy the tape as promised but hid it. He placed it into an old empty video cassette cover and placed it in one of the guest rooms on the first floor of his house in Sri Banang, Klang. It was stacked with about thirty or forty other old tapes. This happened in September 1999. In October he and his family left these premises in Sri Banang, Klang which he had rented, and moved back to his mother-in-law’s house in Jalan Sri Siantan 49, Taman Sri Andalas, Klang.

Rizal’s wife, SD-2 was the one who carried out the shifting from the rented premises in Sri Banang, Klang to Jalan Sri Siantan 49, Taman Sri Andalas, Klang. Rizal was away flying. When he returned to his mother-in-law’s house, he searched for his old video cassettes, particularly the one of him and SP-1, and a second one of himself and his wife, but could not find any of these cassette recordings. Rizal was unwilling to question his wife, SD-2 as to the whereabouts of these two cassette recordings that he had individually labeled ‘Brisbane’ and ‘Wife’ as he was concerned that it would cause a serious argument between his wife and himself. He testified that he thought at the time that his wife had probably found the tapes and destroyed them. So he simply said nothing.

Rizal was clear that at no time did he transfer the contents of the video tape recording in cassette form onto a video compact disc, which comprises the subject matter of the charge. He further explained that he did not have the equipment to do so, and did not know how the cassette recording appeared in video compact disc form. However he was able to point out that the final film appearing on the video compact disc comprised not only the recordings made by him, and which he had participated in together with SP-1, his wife, SD-2 and two unknown girls, but had several other pornographic scenes/recordings involving persons unknown to him.

Several of the scenes involving Rizal and his wife, and Rizal and SP-1 had been edited. These scenes had also been repeated and some of the scenes appeared in the video compact disc recording in reverse order. In short, while he admitted that he was the male actor in several specific scenes with his wife, SD-2, SP-1 and the two unknown girls which were on the video compact disc recording, he had no knowledge of the other participants appearing in all other scenes on the VCD. He also had no knowledge of how the contents of the video cassette tape which he had used to record these scenes had been transferred onto a VCD for mass distribution. He did not in fact know where the original video cassette tapes were.

kudapadi

http://anticyberforensics.wordpr ... akwa-raya-malaysia/

kudapadi

Pramugara `terlampau’ bebas hukuman penjara
KUALA LUMPUR 22 Dis. – Bekas pramugara yang didakwa menghasilkan rakaman dan mengedar video aksi seksnya, Mohd. Rizal Mat Yusof dibebaskan daripada hukuman penjara 18 bulan selepas Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam menerima rayuan untuk mengetepikan sabitan tersebut.

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman P. Nalini memutuskan demikian dengan alasan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwa gagal membuktikan hubungan tertuduh dengan video lucah tersebut.

Mohd. Rizal dihukum penjara 18 bulan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen Klang selepas didapati bersalah di bawah Seksyen 292(a) Kanun Keseksaan pada 17 Februari 2004. – Utusan.

kudapadi

Benarkah Bekas pramugara bebas tuduhan terbitkan VCD lucah
Bekas pramugara bebas tuduhan terbitkan VCD lucah  




SHAH ALAM: Bekas pramugara Malaysia Airlines (MAS) yang dituduh menerbitkan video cakera padat (VCD) lucah dibebaskan dan dilepaskan hari ini selepas Mahkamah Tinggi membatalkan sabitan dan hukuman penjara 18 bulan terhadapnya.


Mahkamah, dalam membenarkan rayuan Mohd Rizal Mat Yusuf, memutuskan sabitan dan kesalahan yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen empat tahun lepas merupakan kegagalan keadilan.

Alasan utamanya ialah kegagalan pihak pendakwaan membuktikan bahawa Rizal yang telah membuat atau menerbitkan VCD bertajuk "Kehidupan Seorang Pramugara Yang Terlampau" bagi tujuan pengagihan dan pengedaran.


Rizal, 36, pada 17 Dis, 2004, dihukum penjara 18 bulan kerana membuat dan mengedarkan VCD yang memaparkan adegan lucah di Jalan Sri Banang, Taman Sri Andalas, Klang, antara 1999 dan Mei 2003.

Hakim P.Nallini, dalam penghakiman 21 muka surat berkata para saksi pihak pendakwaan telah gagal mengaitkan antara VCD lucah itu dan Mohd Rizal.


Beliau berkata tiada bukti yang menunjukkan Rizal membuat atau menerbitkan VCD itu kerana keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan hanya menunjukkan yang dia terbabit dalam beberapa adegan dan merakamkan pita kaset video menggunakan video handycam dan alat kawalan jauh.


"Tidak ada keterangan dikemukakan yang menunjukkan Rizal telah memindahkan isi kandungan pita kaset video itu ke dalam VCD. Begitu juga tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan dia memiliki, atau menggunakan peralatan khas yang diperlukan bagi tujuan pemindahan itu.

"Sekiranya pertimbangan dibuat sama ada wujud kes prima facie berhubung keterangan yang dikemukakan dalam kes pendakwaan dan jika undang-undang yang diperlukan telah diguna pakai dalam kes pembelaan, tidak mungkin keputusan untuk mensabitkan Rizal dapat dicapai.


"Dalam keadaan ini, sabitan terhadap perayu dilihat adalah akibat kegagalan keadilan, mendorong campur tangan di peringkat rayuan," katanya.

Beliau berkata alasan penghakiman oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menunjukkan yang pemeriksaan dan penilaian menyeluruh tidak dilakukan terhadap kes pendakwaan dan sebaliknya semakan teliti dan menyeluruh dilakukan terhadap kes pembelaan.


"Kesan daripada gagal membuat penilaian maksimum terhadap kes pendakwaan, tetapi membuat penelitian menyeluruh terhadap kes pendakwaan ialah untuk menterbalikkan beban bukti.

"Menterbalikkan beban bukti seperti itu akan menyebabkan keadilan tidak dapat dilaksanakan. Undang-undang mensyaratkan yang penilaian maksimum patut dilakukan pada penutupan kes pendakwaan bukan sekadar ketetapan tetapi perlu diaplikasikan," katanya.


Rizal, dalam pembelaannya mengaku merakamkan perlakuan seksualnya dengan pramugari rakan sekerja dalam pita kaset video menggunakan kamera video bimbit bagi kegunaan peribadi.


Katanya apabila dia memutuskan hubungan dengan pramugari itu, dia berjanji untuk memusnahkan pita itu dan dia tidak memindahkan isi kandungannya ke dalam VCD kerana dia tidak mempunyai peralatan untuk berbuat demikian.

Dalam rayuannya, Rizal, diwakili peguam Rakhbir Singh, berkata hakim perbicaraan telah gagal mempertimbangkan yang tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan yang dia membuat atau menerbitkan VCD itu dan yang dia tahu atau memiliki alat khas untuk menerbitkan VCD itu.


Katanya hakim perbicaraan juga gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa semua saksi telah mengesahkan yang dia tidak mungkin terlibat dalam penjualan atau pengedaran VCD.

Ketika ditemui di luar mahkamah, Rizal, yang menutup mukanya dengan sapu tangan dengan hanya matanya saja yang kelihatan, memberitahu pemberita yang beliau bersyukur dan lega dengan keputusan itu."Saya sangat bersyukur, alhamdulilah. Terima kasih kepada ibu bapa yang sentiasa memberi sokongon dan peguam saya yang telah bekerja keras. Selepas ini saya hendak mencari kerja baru.


"Saya tutup muka kerana sebelum ini saya dah banyak kali dibuang kerja kerana kes ini," katanya. BERNAMA
balik

kudapadi

CDrosak

{:4_503:}hari ni xtak banyak cerita mcm ni...majalah laris jegeeekkk

joe_qlate

hahaha mcm nie kah dulu puye crite{:3_84:}

mantois

sangat luchah thread nie....... gambar2 nye takde sensor langsung... terangsang adik ku.....

neofim

Thread ni untuk user yg Level berap cik MOD?.. awat lepas semacam jer pic tu semua..? kasi lockla...

wekwek1

avy TT

scarlett-jo

apsal thread ni xsensor lgsg pic dia...
aku rasa kalo nk ceta pun psl kisah2 tu, x perlu la ltk pic yg tlampau sgt

zanna4eva

Gambar ni huhu..menakutkan..xyah la letak

exclusive_vvip

apsal thread ni xsensor lgsg pic dia...
aku rasa kalo nk ceta pun psl kisah2 tu, x perlu la ltk pic ...
scarlett-jo Post at 15-12-2011 19:55

SETUJU!!!

ixora87

TT gila seks !!! lari...   

lkick2113

baby rina tu ada org kata gambar model pinoy.....

lkick2113

letak la lagi...relex la wei....