Topik: Kes:
Pengenalan kepada
KARPAL SINGH &
Tatacara Jenayah
ANOR v PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR [1991]
*in this case the appellant
had relied on English cases in
contending that the Court
have inherent powers has
power to strike out a case
when prosecution fails to
adduce all evidence in a case
Fakta:
2)Article 145(3) of the
Federal Constitution states
that the Attorney General
shall have power,
exercisable at his
discretion, to institute,
conduct or discontinue any
proceedings for an offence,
other than proceedings in
the Syariah Court etc. The
discretion of the Attorney
General is unfettered and
cannot be challenged and
substituted by that of the
courts.
3)Section 173 of the
Criminal Procedure Code
stipulates the whole
procedure in summary
trials in the subordinate
courts, including
magistrate's courts. There
is no provision in the Code
for striking out proceedings
or acquittal without hearing
all the evidence the
prosecution has the
capacity to offer, even
though adjournments are
needed.
Another relevant
consideration is our
Criminal Procedure Code
and its relationship with
present English common
law. The Criminal Procedure
Code (Amendments and
Extension) Act 1976, which
came into force on 9
January 1976 is applicable
to the whole of Malaysia,
amending and codifying the
previous separate
legislations. The Code, as
its name suggests was
intended to be an
exhaustive pronouncement
of the criminal procedure.
Section 5 of the Code is
indicative of the principles
to be applied by local
courts. This section
provides for English law
relating to criminal
procedure to be applied
when there does not exist
any special provision on the
matter either in the Code
or any other existing law.
 English law is applicable
insofar as it does not
'conflict or be inconsistent
with this Code and can be
made auxiliary thereto.'
The pronouncement and
effect of the Code leave no
lacuna under normal
circumstances.
PUBLIC -On June 9, 1980 the
learned President granted
PROSECUTOR v bail pending the hearing of
CHEW SIEW the case. The learned
LUAN [1982] 1 MLJ President relied on the
280 proviso to section 388(i) of
the Criminal Procedure
Code which permits the
*accused who was a granting of bail to any
pregnant woman that person under the age of 16
was charge under years, any woman, or sick
or infirm person charged
s.39B DDA. with non-bailable offence
carrying life imprisonment
*cara lain sikit dia or death as penalty.
apply maxim
PP appealed but the
generalia specialibus appeal was dismissed.
non derogant
(specific provision notwithstanding the
must prevail over provisions contained
in section 41Bof the
general provision) Dangerous Drugs Act,
1952, it was still within
the court's discretion to
grant bail in non-
bailable offences
punishable with death or
imprisonment for life to
persons covered by the
proviso to section
388(i) of the Criminal
Procedure Code.

I form the view that the

provision relating to
criminal procedure must be
construed strictly. To my
mind section 41B(1) and
(2) should not override the
proviso to section 388(i) of
the Criminal Procedure
Code.
Sara Lily & Anor v PP *HC deal with the issue on
who has the right to
[2004] participate in an inquest to
identify the identity of
*application of deceased
section 5 CPC to
*this has not been laid
apply English Law down specifically in CPC

*Ct. invoked section 5 to

apply the English Coroners
 Rules, Rule 20
Topik:
 Inquiries made by
Arrest/ Tangkapan SHAABAN & ORS v police when the
How arrest is made? CHONG FOOK KAM & police stopped the
ANOR [1969] 2 MLJ appellant at the
219 coffee shop did not
amount to an arrest

This was an appeal against

the decision of the Federal
Court. The respondents
were arrested and detained
by the police. The police
suspected that one or other
of the respondents was
driving the lorry from
whose trailer timber fell
which hit the windscreen of
a car and two men in the
car causing the death of
one of them.

Megat Halim bin The appellant, Megat Halim,

was convicted and
Megat Omar v sentenced by the High
Pendakwa Court Penang for an offence
Raya [2008] of drugs trafficking.
Arrest is made when a
police officer:
1.arrest a person or uses
force megatto restrain the
person
2. Clearly uttered by his
words or conduct that he
will if necessary uses force
to prevent the person from
going anywhere
3.arrest does not happen
when a person is being
stopped for an inquiry
In this case the fact that
the police officer when
raided the appellant house
and made inquiries does
not yet amount to an
arrest.

Section 23(a) CPC- SHAABAN & ORS v This was an appeal against
the decision of the Federal
reasonable suspicion CHONG FOOK KAM & Court. The respondents
ANOR [1969] 2 MLJ
219 were arrested and detained
by the police. The police
suspected that one or other
of the respondents was
driving the lorry from
whose trailer timber fell
which hit the windscreen of
a car and two men in the
car causing the death of
one of them.

The respondents who were

interrogated after the
arrest denied that they
were at the place of the
accident. In the Federal
Court Suffian F.J. said that
the information available to
the police was insufficient
to prove prima facie a case
against the respondents
the test adopted by the
Federal Court was incorrect
as the police are entitled to
arrest if a reasonable
suspicion existed of the
respondents being
concerned in the offence
of reckless driving and
dangerous driving causing
death; it is unnecessary
for the police to show
that there was prima
facie proof of such
offence
Mahmood v In this case, the plaintiff
sued the defendants
Government of alleging that he was
Malaysia unlawfully and negligently
shot at and wounded by a
police officer at the Lake
Garden

 The defence was that the

police officer was doing his
duty as he heard screams
of help of a woman at
about 2.20 am and saw 2
men running away.

 The court held that the

police officer had
reasonable suspicion
that a seizable offence
(rape, robbery, stabbing or
murder) had been
committed.

 The court also held that

the police had not
exceeded his power under
section 15 (2) as he “may
 use all means necessary
to effect arrest”
Reasonable complaint &
credible information A reasonable complaint
in the form of a police
YONG MOI SIN v
report was made by
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA Arunachalam a/l Guana
& ANOR [2000] 1 MLJ Prakasam in exh D3 and
35 credible information
pertaining to the gold
locket was provided by
Khoo who sold the gold to
Appellant and which
information linked the
appellant to the gold locket.
In the mind of the second
respondent, a reasonable
suspicion existed as to the
role of the appellant in the
whole episode. There was
thus sufficient basis for the
second respondent to
arrest the appellant and
that arrest was legally
effected within the
provisions of the CPC.
Appeal was dismissed as
there was no illegal arres
was done as the appellant
was concerned with a
seizable offence
S.27-arrest by a private Interpretation of ‘in his
person view’ The court held “in his view”
meant committed in the
sight of the private person
-commits non bailable & Metro (Golden Mine) Pte and mere opinion is
seizable offence Ltd v Paul Chua Wah insufficient.
Lian The PW gave evidence that
having heard the sound of
gunfire and someone
PP v Sam Hong Choy shouting “Tolong kejar
perompak”. Then he saw 2
men running past him, one
of whom he later identified
as the accused.
 The defence argued that
the PW could not arrest
because the offence had
not beencommitted in his
view.
The Ct held that ‘'In his
view', would cover
situations found in the
instant case where
although the private
person did not actually
Witness the non bailable
and seizable offence, he
was certain that those
persons running away or
trying to escape were the
offenders themselves as
 he was in such close
proximity to the scene of
crime

Topik 3:
Hak orang yang ditangkap
mahkamah dalam kes
tersebut memutuskan
Diberitahu alasan bahawa orang yang
Per. 5(3)
penangkapan ditangkap perlu diberitahu
Diberitahu alasan & diberi
peluang untuk alasan bagi
mendapatkan pengamal penangkapannya melainkan
1. dia mengetahui sifat
undang2
kesalahan yang dituduhi
atau
Section 28A(1)
2. ia adalah mustahil untuk
memberitahunya.
Christie v Leachinsky Selanjutnya, mahkamah
[1947] telah menyatakan bahawa
sekiranya orang yang
*prinsip dalam kes ini ditangkap tidak
diikuti dalam kes Khaerly diberitahu alasan
Benjamin Ibrahim v Ketua penangkapannya, dia
Polis Negara berhak menentang
penangkap tersebut dan
sebarang kekerasan
yang digunakan untuk
mengatasi penentangan itu
akan menjadi serangan
Hak berunding dengan Perkara 5(3) PP
pengamal undang2 pilihan
Seksyen 28A(2)(b) KTJ Beban adalah terletak
kepada pihak polis yang
Ooi Ah Pua v OCCI menafikan hak orang yang
Kedah/Perlis ditahan untuk berunding
dengan pengamal undang-
undang atas alasan jika
mereka membenarkan
akan akan menyebabkan
suspek mereka cerita atau
gangguan kepada siasatan.
Fadhilah Nadwa Fikri & pegawai polis telah
Ors v Konstable Fauziah menafikan hak plaintif-
Mustafa & Ors 2015 plaintif untuk berunding
dengan peguam dengan
menggunakan Seksyen
28A(8) KTJ.
Mahkamah memutuskan
bahawa penangkapan
yang dilakukan adalah
tidak sah kerana alasan
yang dikemukan oleh
pegawai polis tersebut
untuk menggunakan
Seksyen 28A(8) KTJ
adalah tidak munasabah
berdasarkan keadaan dan
fakta kes. Bukan itu sahaja,
pegawai polis tersebut
asyik menukar alasannya
bagi menggunakan
Seksyen tersebut dan oleh
 itu, mahkamah mempunyai
alasan untuk meragui
kesahihan dan kebenaran
alasan yang dikemukakan
oleh pegawai polis tersebut
atas kepercayaannya di
bawah Seksyen 28A(8)
KTJ.
Hak untuk dibawa ke Perkara 5(4)
hadapan Majistret dalam Perlembagaan
Persekutuan
tempoh 24 jam untuk
mendapatkan perintah bahawa orang yang
reman ditangkap harus dibawa
ke hadapan Majistret mahkamah telah
dalam tempoh 24 jam dan memutuskan bahawa
Seksyen 28 dan 117 telah
tidak boleh ditahan dalam
dimasukkan ke dalam KTJ
jagaan selanjutnya tanpa
agar penahanan seseorang
kebenaran Majistret.
oleh pegawai polis melebihi
24 jam setelah
=seksyen 28 KTJ penangkapannya bukan
hasil daripada tindakan
Hassan Marsom & Ors v eksekutif tetapi sebagai
Mohd Hady Ya’akop [2018] hasil keputusan kehakiman
yang selari dengan Perkara
5(4) Perlembagaan
Persekutuan.
Seksyen 117 KTJ Zafari Md Yunus v PP Perintah tahanan reman
[2017] yang dikeluarkan adalah
tidak sah kerana terdapat
perlanggaran s.117(1) dan
s.119(1) apabila polis gagal
untuk menyertakan satu
salinan diari siasatan
bersama-sama dengan
permohonan reman di
mahkamah.
Mahkamah dalam kes ini
telah mengetepikan
perintah tahanan reman
yang dibuat oleh
mahkamah yang lebih
rendah.
Re The Detention of Mahkamah telah
Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong memutuskan bahawa
[1998] sebelum membenarkan
suatu perintah reman,
Majistret harus berpuas
hati bahawa terdapat
alasan untuk
mempercayai sesuatu
tuduhan tersebut adalah
berasas and kehadiran
tertuduh adalah
diperlukan untuk
menjalankan siasatan
polis.
Namun, alasan bahawa
masa akan menunjukkan
tertuduh bersalah atau
fakta lain akan muncul
adalah tidak cukup
 untuk membenarkan
suatu perintah reman.
Seksyen 117 KTJ hanya
dipakai untuk tertuduh dan
bukan orang yang
berpotensi menjadi saksi.
Seksyen 119 KTJ -Zafari Md Yunus [2017] -refer to the above column
- Dalam kes ini, mahkamah
-Asok Kumar memutuskan bahawa
Rajarathenam v Pendakwa perintah tahanan reman
Raya [2021] yang dikeluarkan oleh
mahkamah adalah sah dan
rayuan wajar untuk ditolak
kerana pegawai penyiasat
dalam kes ini menyertakan
catatan diari siasatan
semasa membuat
permohonan reman di
mahkamah selaras dengan
keperluan s.117 dan s.119.
Remedi bagi penahanan Hak untuk mengambil
yang tidak sah tindakan sivil dan Mahkamah dalam kes ini
menuntut ganti rugi memutuskan bahawa
mana2 orang yang ditahan
PP v Kok Khee secara salah berhak untuk
mengambil tindakan sivil
bagi mendapatkan gamti
rugi
Hak untuk
mempertahankan diri Seseorang yang ditangkap
dan ditahan secara tidak
Khor Ah Kah v PP [1964] sah mempunyai hak untuk
mempertahankan dirinya
bagi menentang
penangkapan yang dibuat
secara tidak sah.