Nur Husna binti Azizan

A173712
Firma 16

i. Name of Case, Citation & Court

Asok Kumar a/l Rajarathenam v PP [2021] MLJU 1038 – Penang High Court

ii. Facts of the Case

A police report was made by Ronald Teoh Li Thian on 9/12/2020 claiming that
there was a trespass at his factory and a few items as well as copper wire have
been stolen. Upon investigation, the police detained Leow Wei Ming. On
11/12/2020, it was found that some of the stolen items were also found in the
applicant’s business premise in Bukit Mertajam, Penang. Hence, the applicant was
detained for investigation of trespass under section 457 of the Penal Code. On
12/12/2020, the applicant was brought to Bukit Mertajam Magistrate Court where
he has been remanded alongside 2 other suspects pursuant to section 117 of the
CPC. The court allowed for the remand to be extended for 2 days effective from
12/12/2020 to 13/12/2020.

iii. Issue

Whether the extension of the remand period allowed by the Magistrate was flawed
as it does not comply section 117 and section 119 of the CPC.

iv. Argument by Plaintiff’s Counsel

The extension of the remand period was flawed because the details regarding the
investigation that was issued by the IO did not comply to the requirements under
section 119 of the CPC. The IO did not provide the magistrate the details of the
investigation. The IO only served one or two pieces of paper to the magistrate
while applying for the remand period to be extended

v. Argument by Defendant’s Counsel

The DPP argued that the application by the applicant should be set aside or denied
by the court by in limine as it did not raise any question of law as the applicant has
been released with bail by the police on 12/12/2020, 3:30 pm which is less than 24
hours from the time the applicant was detained. Hence, the detain period of the
applicant was still subject to the 24 hour period that was allowed as well as the
extended detain period that was allowed by the court (2 days). Hence, there is no
live issue to this application.

vi. Court Decision

On the issue raised by the applicant that the remand order allowed by the
Magistrate was without a basis and did not comply to section 117 and section 119
of the CPC, the court clarified that section 117 give the power to the magistrate to
allow a remand order only to complete an investigation and not to start a new one.
If a police requires for an investigation to be done more than 24 hours, the
investigation officer must without delay submit to the magistrate a copy of the
details provided in the diary of proceedings in investigation and at the same time
must bring the accused before the magistrate.

The requirements under section 117(1) CPC made it compulsory that all IO
present a copy of the details in the diary of proceedings as provided in section
119(1) CPC for the magistrate to determine whether the remand period may be
extended or not. The diary of proceedings is also one of the factors to determine
credibility for a remand period to be extended. The details in the diary must prove
to the magistrate that there is merit to believe that the accused before him is the
person involved in the police report as the accuse and to allow the remand period
applied by the IO.

It was held that the diary of proceedings in investigation have been submitted to
the magistrate in accordance with section 117(1) and section 119(1) of the CPC.
The applicant is not allowed to ask and see the details of the diary as provided in
section 119(2) of the CPC. It was also found that there was a relation between the
stolen items and the applicant. Therefore, the court is satisfied on the accuracy as
well as the legality of the remand order that has been allowed by the magistrate.
The application was dismissed.