Pendakwa Raya v M Mahalechemy A/P P Muthusamy

Case Significance

Illustrates the High Court's use of its revisionary jurisdiction under section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside a Sessions Court's discharge not amounting to acquittal that was granted without a finding of groundlessness, and to remit the matter for a fresh trial.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru arises from a criminal revision brought by the Public Prosecutor under section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code against a decision of the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court had, on 20 August 2025, ordered that the accused be dilepaskan tanpa dibebaskan (discharged without being acquitted — a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, or DNAA) on two charges brought under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act. The Public Prosecutor invoked the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction to challenge that order. The court began by restating the nature of that jurisdiction, drawing on authorities including Liaw Kwai Wah v PP and PP v Kulasingam, which describe the High Court's 'paternal or supervisory' role in ensuring that the criminal law is properly administered by the subordinate courts and that no miscarriage of justice occurs. The court stressed that this supervisory role exists precisely to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their statutory powers and to correct orders that stray beyond them. Turning to the merits, the court identified several errors in the way the discharge had been granted: there had been no finding by the Sessions Court that the charges against the accused were tidak berasas (groundless), the adjournment said to justify the discharge had in fact been for reasonable cause, and the absence of a mobile phone as an exhibit had to be assessed in the context of the charges under that Act rather than treated as decisive. The court concluded that the DNAA order was wrong, irregular and made in excess of the Sessions Court's jurisdiction, so that intervention by way of revision was warranted. It accordingly set aside the discharge and directed that the trial proceed before a new trial judge. The judgment is a clear illustration of the High Court using its revisionary powers to correct a subordinate court's improper discharge and to remit a part-heard matter for a fresh trial.