DEBARAJ TAMANG v Pendakwa Raya

pb-44-21-08-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 19 December 2024 • PB-44-21-08/2024 • 12 min read
5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Outcome

The definition of substantial justice has been stated by the learned Chief Justice in the following words: Nor would we attempt any definition of what is substantial justice beyond suggesting in this connection that substantial justice is done when a rightful conviction is upheld and a wrongful one is quashed. [45] Begitu juga di dalam kes Masnelan Pakpahan v. Public Prosecutor [1989] 2 CLJ 452, Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa dalam melaksanakan budi bicara menurut seksyen 310 KTJ, fakta dan keadaan sesuatu kes adalah amat penting:.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (pb-44-21-08-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Permohonan jenayah di bawah seksyen 310 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah untuk pelanjutan masa bagi meminda Petisyen Rayuan - Sama ada kedua-dua Pemohon telah memberikan alasan yang munasabah untuk meminda Petisyen Rayuan.

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure

Judges (1)

Fathiyah binti Idris Delivered

Counsel (4)

Harbhajan Kaur & Partners Firm Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang Firm Harbhajan Kaur a/p Ranjit Singh Counsel Applicant Nur Fazliyana Binti Ahmad Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Debaraj Tamang Applicant

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

Cases Cited (5)

MY (5)
[1957] 1 MLRH 801 [1958] MLJ 76 [1989] 1 MLRH 513 [1989] 2 CLJ 452 [2007] 3 CLJ 135

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pb-44-21-08-2024)