Case Summary Section 325 CPC

TOPIC: Revision by High Court under section 325 of CPC
Case name: Sautre a/p Bhaskaran Pillay v Public Prosecutor

Citation: [2021] MLJU 2004
Court: High Court, Muar
A. FACTS OF THE CASE

This case involves an application for revision to set the order of the Learned Magistrate who
refused bail for the applicant. The applicant was charged before the Magistrates’ Court under
section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 on 23 September 2021 and she is held under remand
pending the transmission of the case to the High Court.
The Applicant was arrested on 15 September 2021 at the Muar High Court when she came to
visit her son is undergoing a criminal trial at the Muar High Court. She gave a packet to her
son (who is under remand) through the Court Police. The police decided to check the packet
and found some substance which was suspected to be dangerous drugs. She was arrested and
has since, been under remand because the case is classified under section 39B (1) Dangerous
Drugs Act 1952 and is pending full investigation. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant
moved this Court to exercise its revisionary powers to set aside the remand order that was
granted by the Learned Magistrate. The basis of the application was that the Applicant is 63
years old, has a permanent address, of clean records from any criminal conviction or arrest.
B. ISSUES RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

i. “Whether a person charged under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (“DDA”)
may be granted bail pending transmission to the High Court”
ii. Whether the High Court should exercise the powers of revision under section 325 Criminal
Procedure Code on the facts and circumstances of the case
C. ARGUMENTS BY THE PROSECUTION

None.
D. ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENCE

None.
E. DECISION & JUDGEMENT

Decision:
1. The application for a revision of the Order of the Learned Magistrate in refusing bail
is dismissed.
Judgment:
A. Bail for persons charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the DDA
Here, it is settled law that persons charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the DDA would not be
granted bail.
i. The High Court referred to the case of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. CHEW SIEW
LUAN [1982] CLJ 285 (Rep); [1982] CLJ 354; [1982] 2 MLJ 119 where the Federal
Court in this case has affirmed the position that of bail under DDA cases should be
dealt with under their specific law which has been stipulated under section 41B of
DDA.
ii. In the latest case from the Federal Court which is ABDULLAH ATAN v. PP &
OTHER APPEALS [2020] 9 CLJ 151 recognised and reaffirmed the decision in PP V.
CHEW SIEW LUAN whereby held that;
“The provisions regulating the granting of bail under the Dangerous Drugs Act must be
construed in the context of that Act and not in that of the Criminal Procedure Code and to
that extent the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code must ex necessitate yield
to the specific provisions of section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act in that regard.”
B. High Court’s power of revision under section 325 of the CPC.

The High Court held that in a revision, the main question to be considered is whether
substantial justice has been done or will be done and whether any order made by the lower
court should be interfered, only in very exceptional circumstances, to prevent a miscarriage
of justice and confined myself to errors of law and procedure only.
i. The application for revision must be done at the first possible moment and not after
other methods of procedure have been unsuccessfully adopted (DORAI MANICKAM
ALIAS DAVIS V. REX [1936] 1 LNS 12; [1936] 1 MLJ 209).
ii. Dorai Manickam was approved by the Court of Appeal in MOHD DALHAR
REDZWAN & ANOR V. DATUK BANDAR, DEWAN BANDARAYA KUALA
LUMPUR [1995] 2 CLJ 209 where his Lordship Justice Gopal Sri Ram (for the Court
of Appeal) said;
“there can be no resort had by a party to the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court when
the decision complained of is appealable and no appeal has been lodged;”
In our current case, the High Court found there is no miscarriage of justice whereby there was
nothing in the remand that was either illegal, or incorrect or improper. Hence, the revision is
dismissed and the decision of the lower court is affirmed.

Case Summary Section 325 CPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Summary Section 325 CPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Summary Section 325 CPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC: Revision by High Court under section 325 of CPC

Case name: Sautre a/p Bhaskaran Pillay v Public Prosecutor

A. FACTS OF THE CASE

B. ISSUES RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

C. ARGUMENTS BY THE PROSECUTION

D. ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENCE

E. DECISION & JUDGEMENT

B. High Court’s power of revision under section 325 of the CPC.

You might also like