Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge amounting to acquittal (daa)

Legal area

Court

31 May 2024

OOI CHIENG SIM

Citation

PB-44-21-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PB-44-21-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court order releasing the accused DNAA was quashed because it was legally improper: the prosecution did not apply for discharge under s.254 CPC but instead sought a warrant for the absent investigating officer; the Sessions Court should have issued the arrest warrant and continued the trial rather than granting DNAA on the ground of witness non-attendance. Therefore High Court set aside the DNAA, ordered reinstatement of prosecution and issuance of warrant for the investigating officer, remand and continuation of the trial; the Sessions Court acted beyond lawful discretion in the…
24 Apr 2024

NICHOLAS A/L MAZIVANAN

Citation

AA-41(Ors)(A)-1-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

AA-41(Ors)(A)-1-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted the Magistrate's Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal with a Discharge Amounting to an Acquittal because Section 254 grants the court discretion to order acquittal when the prosecution declines or is repeatedly unready to proceed, prosecutorial discretion under Article 145 is not absolute and does not preclude judicial determination, and the repeated delays and lack of preparedness by the prosecution caused injustice and undue hardship warranting DAA.
26 Jan 2024

Abdul Razak Bin Anwar Batcha

Citation

WA-42K-9-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42K-9-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court applied the binding majority in Vigney Alfred Raj and statutory text of s.254(3) CPC and Article 145(3) FC: where prosecution withdraws before judgment and seeks DNAA pending further investigation, the default and proper order is DNAA unless clear circumstances justify DAA; the Sessions Court properly exercised discretion and its DNAA is affirmed.
26 Jan 2024

MOHAMED SIDDIQ BIN ANWAR BATCHA

Citation

WA-42K-10-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42K-10-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
12 Oct 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Mohd Yazid Bin Turot

Citation

JG-82-02-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JG-82-02-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because section 254A CPC permits reinstatement of trial on recharge and thereby renders a DNAA non-final, and because the Public Prosecutor applied for DNAA exercising exclusive prosecutorial discretion, the DNAA order was not a final order and thus not appealable; the appeal is dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

OOI CHIENG SIM

NICHOLAS A/L MAZIVANAN

Abdul Razak Bin Anwar Batcha

MOHAMED SIDDIQ BIN ANWAR BATCHA

PENDAKWARAYA Mohd Yazid Bin Turot