RAJENDRAN A/L KRISHNAN [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

RAJENDRAN A/L KRISHNAN [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal in relation to charge P4 (section 186 Penal Code) because the charge as framed was fatally defective for failing to include the essential element that the public servant was discharging his public functions; that omission misled the accused and caused failure of justice, requiring quashing of the conviction and sentence under section 316 CPC (with reliance on section 422 principles). The conviction and sentence for P5 (section 14 Minor Offences Act) were upheld.

Citation
BA-41S(A)-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu: Rajendran a/l Krishnan; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Case Number
BA-41S(A)-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court (appellate Hearing From Magistrate)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: conviction and sentence for charge P4 (section 186 Penal Code) quashed; conviction and sentence for charge P5 (section 14 Minor Offences Act 1955) affirmed; prosecution cross-appeal on sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Obstruction of Public Servant, Charge Drafting and Defects, Validity of Arrest and Detention, Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence, Minor Offences Act Offences
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Procedural Law Constitutional Law Obstruction of Public Servant Charge Drafting and Defects Validity of Arrest and Detention Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Minor Offences Act Offences

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajendran a/l Krishnan

Perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court (appellate Hearing From Magistrate)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate failed to comply with section 163 CPC by trying distinct offences together
  2. 2 Whether charge P4 under section 186 Penal Code was fatally defective by omitting the element that the public servant was discharging his public function
  3. 3 Whether the arrest/detention by SP4 was lawful and supported by a credible basis (report P1)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal in relation to charge P4 (section 186 Penal Code) because the charge as framed was fatally defective for failing to include the essential element that the public servant was discharging his public functions; that omission misled the accused and caused failure of justice, requiring quashing of the conviction and sentence under section 316 CPC (with reliance on section 422 principles). The conviction and sentence for P5 (section 14 Minor Offences Act) were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: conviction and sentence for charge P4 (section 186 Penal Code) quashed; conviction and sentence for charge P5 (section 14 Minor Offences Act 1955) affirmed; prosecution cross-appeal on sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • Quash conviction and sentence for charge P4 (section 186 Penal Code) and acquit and discharge the appellant as to that charge.
  • Affirm conviction and sentence for charge P5 (section 14 Minor Offences Act 1955): fine RM100, default 1 day imprisonment.