w-05-219-05-2025 — Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) Romika bin Che Kamarulzaman 2. ) Mustaffa Kamal Bin Zulkefli PEGUAM PEMERHATI Badan Peguam Malaysia

Catchwords

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 117 CPC, which governs remand applications. The key issue – whether only the Investigating Officer (IO) in charge must personally appear before the Magistrate – or whether another officer may do so if the IO is unavailable – High Court held that Section 117 CPC requires the IO’s personal attendance – the Appellant argued that such an interpretation creates operational difficulties, disrupts investigations, and burdens police efficiency. Findings by Court of Appeal – Section 117 CPC requires two obligations from the IO - (i) transmitting the police diary entries, and (ii) producing the accused before the Magistrate. It does not mandate the IO’s physical presence – The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction No. 11 of 2021 reinforces this by focusing on proper filing of documents and the accused’s production, not IO attendance – Safeguards for the accused remain intact – production before the Magistrate, legal representation, the requirement for diary entries, and written reasons for remand – Judicial scrutiny ensures protection of liberty – The absence of the IO does not compromise fairness or promote “arrest first, investigate later”. Conclusion – The High Court erred in law – Insisting on the IO’s personal attendance imposes unnecessary rigidity, disrupts investigations, and burdens police operations – The appeal is allowed and the High Court’s decision is set aside.

Practice Areas

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 117 CPC, which governs remand applications. The key issue Findings by Court of Appeal Conclusion

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan Delivered Noorin binti Badaruddin Coram

Counsel (8)

Collin's Law Chambers Firm Collin Arvind Andrew Counsel Respondent Jhairmal Singh Korotana Counsel Intervener N. Sivananthan A/L Nithyanantham Counsel Intervener Saiful Edris bin Zainuddin Counsel Prosecution Shahlini Sree Kumar Counsel Respondent Zaki Asyraf Bin Zubir Counsel Prosecution Zander Lim Wai Keong Counsel Prosecution

Parties (4)

BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA Watching Brief Pendakwa Raya Appellant Mustaffa Kamal bin Zulkefli Respondent Romika bin Che Kamarulzaman Respondent

Summary

The prosecution appealed the High Court's ruling that Section 117 CPC requires the investigating officer (IO) personally in charge of a case to appear before the Magistrate for remand applications. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Section 117 CPC does not mandate the IO's physical presence and insisting otherwise would impose unnecessary rigidity and burden police operations.

What was the outcome of Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) Romika bin Che Kamarulzaman 2. ) Mustaffa Kamal Bin Zulk...?

<p>The prosecution appealed the High Court's ruling that Section 117 CPC requires the investigating officer (IO) personally in charge of a case to app...

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

s 15(1)(a)

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)

Federal Constitution

Art 5 Art 5(4)

Poisons Act 1952

s 31A

Cases Cited (6)

MY (6)

[1999] 6 CLJ 317 [2010] 6 CLJ 938 [2014] 9 CLJ 15 [2022] 3 CLJ 177 [2024] 10 CLJ 625 [2025] 1 CLJ 796