PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) KARTIGHES A/L RAJA MANICKAM 2. ) NATHAN A/L MUNUSAMY

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) KARTIGHES A/L RAJA MANICKAM 2. ) NATHAN A/L MUNUSAMY

The charge was defective because it omitted the essential mens rea element required by Section 186 and this omission could not be cured under Section 422; additionally the prosecution failed to prove mens rea and conducted an incomplete investigation (failure to call a key witness), therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused were discharged and acquitted.

Citation
PA-83-688-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Kartighes a/l Raja Manickam; Accused: Nathan a/l Munusamy
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Case Number
PA-83-688-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Both accused discharged and acquitted
Legal Topics
Obstruction of Public Servant, Charge Defectiveness and Amendment, Mens Rea Requirement, Police Investigation Adequacy, Section 186 Penal Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Administrative Enforcement Obstruction of Public Servant Charge Defectiveness and Amendment Mens Rea Requirement Police Investigation Adequacy Section 186 Penal Code

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Kartighes a/l Raja Manickam

Accused

Nathan a/l Munusamy

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge was defective for omission of mens rea ('with intent'/'voluntarily')
  2. 2 Whether the defendants acted 'with intent' or 'voluntarily' to obstruct a public servant under Section 186
  3. 3 Whether the charge could be amended under Sections 156/422

Ratio Decidendi

The charge was defective because it omitted the essential mens rea element required by Section 186 and this omission could not be cured under Section 422; additionally the prosecution failed to prove mens rea and conducted an incomplete investigation (failure to call a key witness), therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused were discharged and acquitted.

Court Disposition

Both accused discharged and acquitted

Orders

  • Both accused discharged and acquitted; no further action