PENDAKWARAYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. MOHD RUZAINI BIN SAMINGAN (I/C NO. : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) 2. ROSZAIMI BIN ROSLAN (I/C NO. : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

PENDAKWARAYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. MOHD RUZAINI BIN SAMINGAN (I/C NO. : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) 2. ROSZAIMI BIN ROSLAN (I/C NO. : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Application under section 51 CPC was disallowed because the defence failed to establish the mandatory prerequisites for production — relevancy and specificity were not sufficiently demonstrated and, critically, necessity and desirability were not proven; the contested police report is a police document arising from investigation and the prosecution did not intend to use it.

Citation
JB-45-12-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Mohd Ruzaini bin Samingan; Accused: Roszaimi bin Roslan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Case Number
JB-45-12-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs (section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Trial — Oral Application for Production of Police Report Under Section 51 Criminal Procedure Code During Cross‑examination
Outcome
Application disallowed
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Disclosure Obligations, Section 51 Criminal Procedure Code, Police Reports and Privilege, First Information Report, Relevancy and Specificity, Necessity and Desirability
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Procedure Evidence Criminal Law Production of Documents Disclosure Obligations Section 51 Criminal Procedure Code Police Reports and Privilege First Information Report +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Mohd Ruzaini bin Samingan

Accused

Roszaimi bin Roslan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs (section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Trial — Oral Application for Production of Police Report Under Section 51 Criminal Procedure Code During Cross‑examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a police report (Batu Pahat Report 024281/16) referenced in exhibit P34 must be produced to the defence under s.51 CPC
  2. 2 Whether police reports/statements recorded during investigation are privileged and exempt from disclosure
  3. 3 What prerequisites under s.51 (relevancy, specificity, original possession, necessity, desirability) must be satisfied and when (pre‑trial v during trial)

Ratio Decidendi

Application under section 51 CPC was disallowed because the defence failed to establish the mandatory prerequisites for production — relevancy and specificity were not sufficiently demonstrated and, critically, necessity and desirability were not proven; the contested police report is a police document arising from investigation and the prosecution did not intend to use it.

Court Disposition

Application disallowed

Orders

  • Application under section 51 Criminal Procedure Code to produce Batu Pahat Report 024281/16 is dismissed