SELVAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM 1. ) Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

BA-25-38-05/2021 Kand. 33 26/04/2022 14:39:30 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-38-05/2021 Dalam Perkara Permohonan oleh SELVAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM (No. K/P: 890228-10- 5181) untuk mendapatkan kebenaran untuk suatu perintah deklarasi dan/atau certiorari Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman untuk mendapatkan suatu perintah certiorari dan/atau deklarasi Dan Dalam perkara Perintah Pegawasan Polis bertarikh 29-04-2019 di bawah Seksyen 5(1) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 Dan Dalam perkara Perlanjutan Perintah Pengawasan Polis bertarik 22-04-2021 yang berkuatkuasa pada 28-04-2021 di bawah Seksyen 15(1) dan 15(3) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen 3, 4, 4A, 7, 7A, 7B, 8, 9, 9A, 10, 10A, 12, 15 dan 15A Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 (Pindaan 2017) Dan 1 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Dalam perkara mengenai Perkara 5, 7 dan Perkara 151 Perlembagaan Persekutuan Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Akta Kehakiman 1964 dan Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA SELVAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM (No. K/P: 890228-10-5181) …PEMOHON DAN 1. PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGERI KELANTAN 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGEMENT [1] This is an application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the police surveillance order dated 29 April 2019 under subsection 5 (1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“POCA”) and the extension of the police supervision order dated 22 April 2021. 2 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BACKGROUND [2] The applicant was detained under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“POCA”) and subsequently ordered to undergo a police supervision order under subsection 15(1) of POCA. [3] The order by the Chairman of the Prevention of Crime Board ordered the applicant to a police supervision order at Pekan Rembau, Daerah Rembau, Negeri Sembilan for a period of two years commencing from 29 April 2019. This was extended for a period of one year at Mukim Belimbing, Jajahan Jeli, Negeri Kelantan via an order dated 22 April 2021 which commenced on 28 April 2021. ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPLICANT [4] There were two issues raised by the applicant in this application as follows: (i) Non-compliance of section 4A of POCA when there was a delay of 15 days by the Investigating Officer to produce the completed report to the Inquiry Officer; and (ii) Non-compliance of section 4A of POCA when there was a delay of 21 days to provide the completed report to the POCA Board. 3 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS (i) Non-compliance of section 4A of POCA when there was a delay of 15 days by the Investigating Officer to produce the completed report to the Inquiry Officer [5] To consider this issue, it would be prudent to first consider the provision of section 4A of POCA. For ease of reference section 4A of POCA is reproduced below: Section 4A. Report of investigation to be submitted to Inquiry Officer, etc. The police officer making an investigation pertaining to a person arrested under subsection 3(1) shall cause a copy of the complete report of the investigation to be submitted to an Inquiry Officer and the Board, within such period as may be prescribed by the Minister. [6] A perusal of section 4A of POCA does not prescribe a specific time frame for which the completed report is to be submitted to the Inquiry Officer and the POCA Board. Section 4A of POCA provides for any time frame as maybe prescribed by the Minister. As it stands currently, there is no period prescribed by the Minister for the completed report to be submitted to the Inquiry Officer and the POCA Board [7] In circumstances when legislation does not provide a period or time frame, reference is made to subsection 54(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 as reproduced below: 4 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 54. (2) Where no time is prescribed within which anything shall be done, that thing shall be done with all convenient speed and as often as the prescribed occasion arises. [8] What amounts to convenient speed is best enunciated in the case of Chua Kian Voon v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 747. [9] The applicant submitted that a total of 15 days taken by Insp Paul Marcos to submit the completed report to the Inquiry Officer and the POCA Board was unreasonable and was not done in convenient speed. Whist the section 4A of POCA does not provide a time frame, it was submitted any action had to done in convenient speed and any delay should be explained. [10] Learned Federal Counsel on behalf of the respondents argued the issue of delay was never pleaded, either generally or specifically, in any of the affidavits or affidavits in reply of the applicant. Hence this issue should not be heard by this court. Alternatively, it was submitted that a 15 day period did not amount to an inordinate delay. Reference was made to the affidavit of Insp Paul Marcos which justified the actions taken by him in investigating this case during the period of 15 days. [11] Pertaining to the issue that the applicant had not pleaded this specifically or generally, reference was made to the Federal Court case of Iftikar Ahmed Khan v Perwira Affin Bank Berhad [2018] 1 CLJ 415 and the 5 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Court of Appeal case of Keng Kien Hock v Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia & ORs [2007] 5 CLJ 171. [12] Regarding the issue of inordinate delay, the respondents submitted that the remand periods provided in section 4 of POCA was for the purposes of investigation. In paragraph 12 of Insp Paul Marcos’ affidavit in reply, he had detailed the action he had taken in regard to this case. This included taking the applicant’s statement, witnesses’ statement as well as detection of witnesses. Moreover, he averred he had considered, analysed and confirmed the statements he had taken in accordance with section 4A of POCA. [13] It was argued that this case could be distinguished from the case of Awang Sari Lasikan v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & Anor [05(HC)- 69-04/2021(B)] as there was no delay on the part of Insp Paul Marcos. [14] This court perused the affidavits filed in this application and found this issue of the 15 day delay was not specifically pleaded by the applicant. Reference was made by this court to the case of Iftikar Ahmed Khan v Perwira Affin Bank [2018] 1 CLJ 415, where the Federal Court held that parties are bound to their pleadings and are not allowed to adduce facts and issues which they have not pleaded. [15] In this regard, this court agrees with the contention by the learned Federal Counsel that the failure by the applicant to plead this issue renders this court unable to consider this issue. Hence, for this reason, this court finds this issue without merit. 6 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [16] Nonetheless, even if this court considered the issue of 15 day delay, this court is satisfied that Insp Paul Marcos had detailed his actions in conducting the investigation and this court is satisfied there is no delay. (ii) Non-compliance of section 4A of POCA when there was a delay of 21 days to provide the completed report to the POCA Board [17] With regard to this issue raised, the applicant argued that the Affidavit in Reply of Insp Paul Marcos averred that he had submitted the completed report to the POCA Board in accordance with section 4A of POCA. The investigation report was completed on 28 March 2019 and was submitted to the Inquiry Officer and on 18 April 2019, the completed report was submitted to the POCA Board. In this affidavit in reply, Insp Paul Marcos explained the submission of the completed report was done after the 38-day remand order was obtained against the applicant. This, according to the applicant, was unreasonable reason for a delay of 21 days. It was submitted there was no legal requirement for Insp Paul Marcos to append the documents under section 4 of POCA to the completed report. In support of this submission of delay, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the case of Chua Kian Voon (supra). [18] This delay was submitted to be a procedural non-compliance with section 4 of POCA. Reference was made to the case of Lei Meng v Inspektor Wayandiana bin Abdullah dan tiga lagi (Bersama-sama 24 lagi rayuan yang didengar bersama) [2022] 1 LNS 172. 7 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [19] In response, the respondents argued Insp Paul Marcos had submitted the completed report to the Inquiry officer on 28 March 2019 and to the POCA Board on 18 April 2019. The reason for the completed report was submitted to the POCA Board on 18 April 2019 was explained in paragraph 15 of Insp Paul Marcos’ affidavit in reply. In the affidavit of reply, he states that pursuant to section 4A of POCA, the completed report is to be submitted to the POCA Board after the second remand period of 38 days is obtained under paragraph 4 (2) (a) of POCA. This is to enable the POCA Board to make a decision after considering both the reports from the Pegawai siasatn KDN under section 10 POCA and Investigating officer under section 4A of POCA. [20] It was submitted there is no issue of delay as the POCA Board is required to consider both reports prior to making a decision. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer Muhammad Farith bin Muhammad Faizal in his affidavit in reply averred that he had conducted an inquiry on the applicant on 8 April 2019 and had submitted his completed report to the POCA Board on 18 April 2019. Hence, the respondents submitted this is procedure which the respondents had complied with and this application should be dismissed. [21] Insp Paul Marcos Anak Aeron in this affidavit in reply [Enclosure 8] at paragraph 15 averred the following: 15. Seterusnya pada 18-04-2019, saya telah mengemukakan laporan lengkap penyiasatan terhadap Pemohon kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah selaras dengan Seksyen 4A Akta tersebut. Saya ingin menjelaskan bahawa laporan lengkap penyiasatan terhadap 8 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pemohon di bawah Seksyen 4A Akta tersebut hanya dapat dikemukakan kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah pada 18-04-2019 memandangkan laporan di bawah Seksyen 4A Akta tersebut perlu dikemukakan kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah selepas perintah reman tiga puluh lapan (38) hari terhadap Pemohon diperolehi di bawah Seksyen 4(2)(a) Akta tersebut, iaitu selepas mendapat pengesahan bahawa suatu siasatan di bawah Seksyen 9 Akta tersebut perlu dijalankan ke atas Pemohon oleh Pegawai Siasatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri. Hal ini demikian kerana pihak Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah hanya membuat keputusan selepas menimbangkan kedua-dua laporan oleh Pegawai Siasatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri di bawah Seksyen 10 Akta tersebut dan laporan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat di bawah Seksyen 4A Akta tersebut. Saya selanjutnya menyatakan bahawa saya tidak dapat mengemukakan laporan lengkap penyiasatan di bawah Seksyen 4A Akta tersebut dalam Afidavit ini kerana saya berpendapat sekiranya didedahkan, ianya akan bertentangan dengan kepentingan awam dan mengancam keselamatan saksi-saksi yang telah memberi keterangan terhadap Pemohon secara sulit dan berasingan. Oleh itu, saya memohon perlindungan dan keistimewaan undang-undang di bawah Seksyen 21A Akta tersebut serta Perkara 151(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. [22] Having perused his affidavit in reply, this court is satisfied there is no inordinate delay on the part of the Insp Paul Marcos in submitting his completed report to the POCA Board. Therefore, this court is of the view there is no merit to this issue. 9 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DECISION [23] In conclusion, this court finds there is no procedural non-compliance which would allow this court to allow this application. This application is therefore dismissed with costs of RM2000. Date: 25 April 2022 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam 10 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Counsel: For The Appellant: Jayarubbiny A/P Jayaraj Tetuan K.L. Chee & Co. Advocates & Solicitors Suite D1-2-7, Solaris Dutamas, No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. kl.cheedrive@gmail.com +6 03 6201 7089 For the Respondent: FC Farasyeriza Binti Md. Zabani Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri Aras 5, Blok D1, Kompleks D Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan Putrajaya +6 03 8886 8575 11 S/NBA-25-38-05/2021 0i0GSIQ97E6ZYeThKUb4w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal