PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya 1. ) Suresh a/l Balan 2. ) Gunaselan s/o Sreelam

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya 1. ) Suresh a/l Balan 2. ) Gunaselan s/o Sreelam

Magistrate refused the 38-day remand because prosecution failed to prove that the s.4(2) written statements and police diary contained sufficient facts and particulars to justify an inquiry under s.9 POCA or to identify a registrable category; police failed to demonstrate compliance with s.28A CPC and s.119 CPC; s.4(2) remand is not automatic and the defects entitled the accused to release.

Citation
MA-89-147-04/2021 & MA-89-148-04/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWARAYA; Accused: SURES A/L BALAN; Accused: GUNASELAN S/O SREERAM
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 May 2021
Case Number
MA-89-147-04/2021 & MA-89-148-04/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Remand Application Under Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (poca) S.4(2) / Remand Application Hearing and Magistrate Decision
Outcome
Application for 38-day remand under s.4(2) POCA dismissed; both accused released from custody.
Legal Topics
Remand Under POCA, Section 4(2) POCA, Section 3(1) POCA, Police Diary Requirements, Rights Under Article 5 Federal Constitution, Zaidi Kanapiah Precedent
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Preventive Detention Law Remand Under POCA Section 4(2) POCA Section 3(1) POCA Police Diary Requirements +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWARAYA

Prosecutor

SURES A/L BALAN

Accused

GUNASELAN S/O SREERAM

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Remand Application Under Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (poca) S.4(2) / Remand Application Hearing and Magistrate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.4(2) POCA remand for 38 days should be granted
  2. 2 Whether magistrate must apply Zaidi Kanapiah principles when deciding s.4(2) applications
  3. 3 Whether arrest and remand complied with s.28A CPC and Article 5 FC

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrate refused the 38-day remand because prosecution failed to prove that the s.4(2) written statements and police diary contained sufficient facts and particulars to justify an inquiry under s.9 POCA or to identify a registrable category; police failed to demonstrate compliance with s.28A CPC and s.119 CPC; s.4(2) remand is not automatic and the defects entitled the accused to release.

Court Disposition

Application for 38-day remand under s.4(2) POCA dismissed; both accused released from custody.

Orders

  • Remand application under s.4(2) POCA for 38 days dismissed
  • Both accused released from custody