The Petaling Jaya Sessions Court today set Feb 13 as the new date to deliver a decision on a charge against Batu MP Tian Chua for allegedly insulting the modesty of a police officer in April 2014.

Sessions Court judge Yasmin Abdul Razak set the new date at the end of the defence's case at the court this afternoon.

Yasmin also earlier heard clarifications from lawyer Latheefa Koya who represented Tian Chua and DPP Suhaimi Ibrahim who appeared for plaintiff DSP Glenn A Sinappah.

Tian Chua was charged on Aug 12, 2014, under Section 509 of the Penal Code with uttering swear words at police personnel led by Glenn, who seized his handphone outside the Armada Hotel in Petaling Jaya about 7.45pm on April 14 the same year.

In summarising the defence's case, Latheefa had earlier argued that the charge brought against Tian Chua under Section 509 is wrong as the provision should only be used for cases of molest or sexual misconduct.

"The whole object of Section 509 is to deal with cases where the nature of the offence lies in molest or sexual misconduct.

"Bastard, stupid police, and one word I don’t want to repeat, that does not constitute sexual offences," Latheefa said.

Aside from arguing the need to prove elements of sexual misconduct and intention to outrage the plaintiff's modesty, Latheefa said it was "absurd" that a man of his stature can be so easily insulted by mere words.

Referring to the plaintiff as a high ranking senior police officer, Latheefa said: "It is absurd that his modesty can be so easily insulted like a woman or a man of weak dispositions by mere words allegedly uttered by the accused."

She also maintained that Chua had throughout the proceeding consistently denied uttering the alleged words against Glenn.

At the same time, Latheefa also raised the issue of credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, identifying Glenn as having been previously named in an Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission's inquiry report into the death of N Dharmendran.

She told the court that the plaintiff was among the few senior police officers against whom EAIC had recommended disciplinary actions to be taken, for attempting to falsify information related to Dharmendran's custodial death case in 2013.

In response to Latheefa, Suhaimi said the only element which the court needed to prove was Chua's intention in uttering the alleged words.

"This is not a complicated case...The action of police (to seize his handphone) had dissatisfied the accused and because of that dissatisfaction, he had uttered the words," said Suhaimi who requested the judge to take into consideration circumstantial evidence on Chua's intention.

He also argued that the words uttered by Chua cannot be construed as being non-sexual only because it was used against a man.

"My learned friend said those words are not supposed to humiliate the dignity of a man. Our contention is to look at it as a person and not male or female.

"If that (derogatory words) can be accepted as an offence against a woman, why not to a man where even laws have accepted the fact?" he said.

If convicted, Chua risks facing a maximum five-year imprisonment or fine or both.