MOHAMED SIDDIQ BIN ANWAR BATCHA

MOHAMED SIDDIQ BIN ANWAR BATCHA

The High Court held the Sessions Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting a DNAA under section 254(3) CPC; the default position upon withdrawal is DNAA, and a DAA is only appropriate where circumstances justify depriving the prosecution of its Article 145(3) FC discretion; prosecution may lawfully prefer charges before completing further investigation and pursue or withdraw later without that rendering the charge groundless, therefore the revision application to set aside the DNAA was dismissed and the DNAA affirmed.

Citation
WA-42K-10-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Abdul Razak bin Anwar Batcha; Appellant: Mohamed Siddiq bin Anwar Batcha; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 January 2024
Case Number
WA-42K-10-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Revision Application
Outcome
Revision application dismissed; order of DNAA affirmed.
Legal Topics
Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal (dnaa), Discharge Amounting to Acquittal (daa), Prosecutorial Discretion, Section 254 CPC, Section 254 a CPC, Revisionary Jurisdiction S.323 CPC, Article 145(3) Federal Constitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Evidence Law Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal (dnaa) Discharge Amounting to Acquittal (daa) Prosecutorial Discretion Section 254 CPC +3 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 6 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Razak bin Anwar Batcha

Appellant

Mohamed Siddiq bin Anwar Batcha

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Revision Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court's order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) was proper
  2. 2 Whether the court should have directed discharge amounting to an acquittal (DAA) upon withdrawal of the charge
  3. 3 Whether prosecution may prefer charges before completing investigation

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Sessions Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting a DNAA under section 254(3) CPC; the default position upon withdrawal is DNAA, and a DAA is only appropriate where circumstances justify depriving the prosecution of its Article 145(3) FC discretion; prosecution may lawfully prefer charges before completing further investigation and pursue or withdraw later without that rendering the charge groundless, therefore the revision application to set aside the DNAA was dismissed and the DNAA affirmed.

Court Disposition

Revision application dismissed; order of DNAA affirmed.

Orders

  • Order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) affirmed