Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 254 criminal procedure code

Legal area

Court

6 May 2026

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

Citation

WA-44-209-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-209-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
10 Dec 2025

GOH PIAK KENG

Citation

JA-83-3942-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83-3942-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Where the prosecution expressly informs the court it will not further prosecute at that stage and requests DNAA, the court lawfully may order discharge not amounting to acquittal under s.254 KTJ; given the prosecution's stated intention to possibly proceed later, DNAA was the appropriate order.
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.
4 Aug 2023

[ ] MOHD SHAFIQ BIN MOKHTAR

Citation

WA-85-623-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-85-623-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution withdrew the charge because the complainant would not proceed and provided no strong or satisfactory reasons to justify leaving the charge pending; under s254 and binding authority (Vigny Alfred Raj) the court must, absent exceptional justification, order the discharge to amount to an acquittal and refuse a DNAA when the prosecution cannot demonstrate necessity in the public interest.
20 Jun 2023

NAVINRAH A/L K.RAJAH

Citation

BA-45A-81-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-81-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court balanced prosecutorial discretion against the accused's right to fairness and concluded that because the prosecution repeatedly failed to procure attendance of a crucial arresting officer despite sufficient time, and the accused had been detained for nearly four years with no certainty the witness would be produced, it was unjust to leave the charge hanging; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under s.254(3) CPC to order discharge amounting to an acquittal and released the accused.
20 Jun 2023

NAVINRAH A/L K.RAJAH

Citation

BA-45A-77-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-77-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Given the prosecution's repeated failure to produce a crucial arresting officer despite ample time, the prolonged detention of the accused (approximately four years), and the absence of assurance when the witness can be produced, the court exercised its discretion under s.254(3) KTJ to order that the discharge amount to an acquittal and accordingly released and acquitted the accused of all charges to avoid continuing unfair uncertainty and prejudice.
6 Nov 2022

MOHAMAD IBRAHIM BIN ABDUL BASHIR

Citation

JA-83-374-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83-374-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the Deputy Public Prosecutor's application under s.254 CPC and held that the Public Prosecutor's discretion to discontinue prosecution is broad; having considered authorities and the prosecution's representation, the court ordered the accused discharged without acquittal (DNAA) and directed return of the bail.
8 Jul 2022

[ ] WAN FATIHAH BINTI NADZRIN

Citation

AA-42LB-12-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42LB-12-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court found the trial judge erred by substituting the prosecution's DNAA application with an A&D despite the prosecution demonstrating good grounds to suspend proceedings temporarily to conduct further targeted investigations (Lazada and telco), and given delays were attributable in part to COVID restrictions and judicial changes; accordingly the A&D was set aside and replaced with DNAA for all 34 charges.
8 Jul 2022

[ ] WAN FATIHAH BINTI NADZRIN

Citation

AA-42LB-14-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42LB-14-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, finding the Sessions Judge erred in directing an acquittal and discharge because the prosecution had demonstrated good grounds and a clear intention to continue prosecution after further targeted investigations (Lazada and telecommunication records), and delays were attributable to COVID restrictions and judicial changes rather than solely to the prosecution; accordingly the A&D was set aside and substituted with DNAA under section 254.