1. ) CHENG RUEY HOE 2. ) QUEK SUAN SAY

1. ) CHENG RUEY HOE 2. ) QUEK SUAN SAY

The High Court held the re‑charge WA‑62D‑800‑12/2025 was bad in law and set aside because the prosecution had not properly invoked s254, the original proceedings remained subject to s173 analysis by the trial judge, and the prosecution failed to justify adjournments (no medical certificates). The High Court remitted the matter to the Sessions Court to conduct the required s173 analysis and determine the correct disposition of the original charge.

Citation
WA-44-209-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Cheng Ruey Hoe; Applicant: Quek Suan Say; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 May 2026
Case Number
WA-44-209-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (high Court Application / Notis Usul Relating to Prosecution Conduct) / High Court Decision on Application (notis Usul)
Outcome
New charge WA-62D-800-12/2025 dismissed as bad in law and set aside; matter remitted to Sessions Court for s173 analysis of the evidence from the original trial.
Legal Topics
Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, Section 254 Criminal Procedure Code, Section 259 Criminal Procedure Code, Delayed Prosecution, Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal, Remittal for Trial Judge Analysis
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Judicial Review Prosecutorial Discretion Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code Section 254 Criminal Procedure Code Section 259 Criminal Procedure Code Delayed Prosecution +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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheng Ruey Hoe

Applicant

Quek Suan Say

Applicant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal (high Court Application / Notis Usul Relating to Prosecution Conduct) / High Court Decision on Application (notis Usul)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Public Prosecutor could lawfully re-charge the accused after a DNAA/leave to discharge was given by the trial judge
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge must analyse prosecution evidence under s173 CPC before a discharge or acquittal is effective
  3. 3 Whether the AG/PP's discretion under Article 145(3) is immune from judicial review in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the re‑charge WA‑62D‑800‑12/2025 was bad in law and set aside because the prosecution had not properly invoked s254, the original proceedings remained subject to s173 analysis by the trial judge, and the prosecution failed to justify adjournments (no medical certificates). The High Court remitted the matter to the Sessions Court to conduct the required s173 analysis and determine the correct disposition of the original charge.

Court Disposition

New charge WA-62D-800-12/2025 dismissed as bad in law and set aside; matter remitted to Sessions Court for s173 analysis of the evidence from the original trial.

Orders

  • WA-62D-800-12/2025 declared bad in law and struck out
  • Matter remitted to the Sessions Court (originating court) for the trial judge to analyse the prosecution evidence under section 173(c),(f) and (g) Criminal Procedure Code and to determine appropriate disposition