Dr.

Muhamad Helmi Md Said

TATACARA JENAYAH 2
UUK4043
SUMMARY TRIALS- S.173 CPC

 Introduction
I. Scope of Summary Trials
-The provision applies both in Magistrate Court
and Session Court
Case: Loh Kam Foo V PP(1997) 1 CLJ Supp,221
Case: Tengku Abd. Aziz V PP(1971) 17 MLJ 185
ALSO HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE CASE OF

 Case: Muthusamy V PP(1948) MLJ 57

What is the manner of conducting summary

trial?
Case: Maimunah Samad V PP (1997) 3 CLJ Supp
46
ISSUE OF HANDCUFFING OF THE ACCUSED
DURING TRIAL
 An Accused person must not be handcuffed
during the course of trial
Case: PP v Wee Swee Siang(1948) MLJ 114
Case:Yaakob B Ahmad v PP (1975) 2 MLJ 223
Case:Ramanathan A/L Chelliah V
PendakwaRaya(1996) 2 AMR 1849
ISSUE OF KEEPING THE ACCUSED STANDING
DURING TRIAL

 Case:
Avtar Singh V. State of
Maharashtra(AIR) 1982 SC 1260
173 (a) CPC

The following procedure shall be observed by

Magistrates in summary trials:
(a) When the accused appears or is brought
before the Court a charge containing the
particulars of the offence of which he is accused
shall be framed and read and explained to him,
and he shall be asked whether he is guilty of the
offence charged or claims to be tried.
SCOPE OF PARAGRAPH (a)

 The words “shall be observed” implies that the

procedure prescribed is mandatory
 This Paragraph does not specify who is to
frame the charge, but states that a charge shall
be framed and read and explained to the
accused
 Case: PP V Viran(1947) MLJ 62
WHO IS AN ACCUSED

 The terminology has not been defined in the

cpc.But it is generally understood to mean a
person who has been accused of infringing the
law for which he or she is liable to be punished,
if found guilty.
WHEN THE ACCUSED APPEARS OR IS BROUGHT
BEFORE THE COURT
 BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT

 WHEN THE ACCUSED APPEARS

LANGUAGE TO BE USED IN COURT

Section8 of National
Language Act
A.152 FC
ROLE AND FUNCTION OF INTERPRETER

 Case: Fong Hong Sium V PP (1950) MLJ 293

 Huang Chin Shiu V R (1952) MLJ 7

 K. Nalliah V R(1948) MLJ 185

 Ah Poon V PP(2006) 5 CLJ 521

THE INTERPRETER MUST BE COMPETENT

 Case: Huang Chin Shui V Rex (1952) MLJ 7

HOW AN ACCUSED PERSON MUST PLEAD

 It is a trite law today that an accused must

plead through his own mouth
 Case:R v Tan Thian Chai(1932) MLJ 74

 Case:Abd.Kadir Bin Abd.Rahman V PP(1984) 1

MLJ 80
 PP V Leng Chow Teng(1985) 1 MLJ 229
THE PROCEDURE TO PLEAD WHERE THERE IS
ONE ACCUSED AND MULTIPLE CHARGES
 R v. Boyle (1954) 2 ALL ER 721
**The practice has been followed by Malaysian
Court such as ( Mahmood Ali V PP) 1964 MLJ 57
THE PROCEDURE WHERE THERE IS ONE
CHARGE AND MULTIPLE ACCUSED PERSONS

 Where two or more people are charged with a

similar offence, the court must read and
explain the charge to the accused persons
separately and their accused persons
separately and their pleas must be recorded
separately
 Case: Fong Siew Poh V PP(1933) 1 MLJ 155

 Subramaniam V PP (1976) 1 MLJ 76

 Maung Min Aung V PP(2001) 1 AMR 635

READ AND EXPLAINED TO HIM

 PP V Jorge Enrique Pellon(1998) 4 CLJ 278

 Re Mohd Miskin S/O Kader Bacha(1939) MLJ
289

In Contrast with the case:

Rogaya Bt Che Mat V PP(2001) 5 MLJ 77
HE SHALL BE ASKED

 In practices, the charge will usually be heard to

the accused by the interpreter.
 The interpreter will usually ask the accused
whether he pleads guilty or otherwise
 Case: Siew Choon See V PP(1961)MLJ 255
WHERE THE ACCUSED IS A COMPANY

 A company registered under the CA 1965 has a

legal personality
 Case: Justin Milroy Narakera(19900 2 CLj

 Mohd Dalhar Redzwan V Dato Bandar DBKL

(1995)1 AMR 82A
SCOPE OF PARAGRAPH (b)

(b) If the accused pleads guilty to the charge,

whether as originally framed or as amended, the
plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted
on it and the Court shall pass sentence according
to law:
Provided that before a plea of guilty is recorded
the Court shall ascertain that the accused
understands the nature and consequences of his
plea and intends to admit, without qualification,
the offence alleged against him.
 PG amounts to an admission that the accused
committed the criminal act alleged against him
 The Session court or Magistrate Court has a
discretion to convict the accused when the
accused PG or reject the PG and proceed to
trial
 Case: Siow Choon See V PP(1961) MLJ 255

 PP V Nahat Singh (1939)MLJ 239; PP V Chean

Tin(1939) MLJ 266
 PP V Leng Chow Teng(1985) 1 MLJ 229
DUTY TO COURT

 Case: PP V Ismail Bin Ibrahim (1998) 3 mlj 243

 Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja V
PP(2007) 4 AMR
 Chen Chong V PP(1967) 2 MLJ 130
ACCUSED UNDERSTANDS THE NATURE AND
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA
 Case: R V. Khoo Thye(1936) MLJ 243
 Koh Thian Huat V PP(2002) 3 SLR 28
WHETHER EVIDENCE UNDER OATH IS REQUIRED
FOR A CASE AN ACCUSED PG
 Deonny AK Ugoh V PP(1999) 1 MLJ 469
 Lee Kiew V PP (1948) MLJ 163

 R V Lim Soh Chwee(1911) BCGH 178

 Ang leong V PP (1985) 1 MLJ 239

WHETHER MISUNDERSTOOD IN PG CAN BE
REJECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT
 Munandu Sangaran V PP(1984) 2 CLJ 273
THE PG MUST COMPLETELY UNRESERVED,
UNQUALIFIED AND UNEQUIVOCAL

 PP V Cheah Chooi Chuan(1972) 1 MLJ 215

 PP V H. Chamras Tasaso (1975) 2 MLJ 44

 PP V Yusof (1964) MLJ 264

 PP v Margarita B Cruz(1988) 1 MLJ 539

 Juffery Bin Hashim V PP (1986) 2 MLJ 239

 R V Ingleson (1915) 1 KB 512

 MENTAL CAPACITY TO PLEAD

 Where an accused person is insane, the court

must not accept the PG
 Case: PP V Nageswari(1994) 3 MLJ 463

 Whether an accused must be fit to plead?

 Case: PP V Ismail B Ibrahim (1998) 3 MLJ 243