Pendakwa Raya v Romika bin Che Kamarulzaman (W-05-219-05/2025)

ROMIKA BIN CHE KAMARULZAMAN

MUSTAFFA KAMAL BIN ZULKEFLI (I.C. NO. 940713-14-6633) RESPONDENTS [In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur

Romika bin Che Kamarulzaman

Mustaffa Kamal bin Zulkifli Applicants And Public Prosecutor Respondent] CORAM AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, HMR MOHAMED ZAINI BIN MAZLAN, HMR NOORIN BINTI BADARUDDIN, HMR JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), which regulates the procedure for remand of suspects following arrest. The central issue before us is whether only the Investigating Officer (“IO”) directly in charge of an investigation may appear before the Magistrate to support a remand application, or whether another officer may lawfully do so in circumstances where the IO is unable to attend. [2] The High Court, in its ruling, held that the strict requirement under Section 117 CPC mandates the personal attendance of the IO in charge. This interpretation, according to the appellant, has created significant operational difficulties for the police force and risks undermining the effectiveness of criminal investigations. [3] We are therefore tasked in this appeal to determine whether the High Court’s construction of Section 117 CPC was correct in law. Brief facts [4] The respondents were arrested by the police on 5 May 2025 on suspicion of committing offences under section 30(3) Poisons Act 1952 and section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. They were subsequently brought before the Jinjang Magistrate Court the following day, for remand proceedings under section 117 of the CPC. [5] The remand application was made by Sergeant Major Aida, who appeared on behalf of the IO assigned to the case, Inspector Megat Nazmi. The learned Magistrate allowed the police’s application and authorised the respondents to be remanded for two days. On the same day, the respondents' solicitors sent a letter to the Kuala Lumpur High Court, dated 6 May 2025, requesting that the High Court exercise its revisionary powers to review the remand order granted by the Magistrates' Court. The High Court agreed to conduct a review after reviewing the records of the remand proceedings from the Magistrates Court, and heard the parties involved the following day. The High Court’s decision [6] The respondents raised three issues to support their application for revision. The issues presented were:

Question of law: The remand order is inconsistent with the provisions of section 117(1) and section 110(3) of the CPC;

(ii) The representative of the IO has no authority under section 31A of the Poisons Act 1952 to make the remand application; and

(iii) The remand application is baseless as it involves an investigation under section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 against two suspects. [7] The appellant however submitted that the application for revision has been rendered academic as the respondents had already been charged earlier in the day and are no longer under remand. However, the High Court referred to the Federal Court’s judgment in Lei Ming v Inspektor Wayandiana Abdullah & Ors and other appeals [2022] 3 CLJ 177 and held that it has a constitutional duty to assess the validity of a detention as long as the respondents were in custody at the time the application was filed. Therefore, the subsequent release or charging of the appellants does not make the application academic. Since the appellants were under remand when the application for revision was submitted, the High Court affirmed that it retains the jurisdiction to examine the legality of that remand. [8] On the first issue raised by the respondents, the High Court opined that the wording of Section 117(1) CPC is unambiguous and must be given its literal interpretation. The High Court held that provisions of Section 117(1) CPC must be adhered to strictly, and that as the section stipulates that the IO making the investigation shall transmit to the Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary and produce the accused before the Magistrate, that duty cannot be delegated to another police officer. The court also referred to two other High Court cases, namely Quek Qin Long & others v PP [2024] 10 CLJ 625 and Re the detention of Muhammad Nasrul Naim Mohd Nazim [2025] 1 CLJ 796. The High Court concurred with the decision in Quek Qin Long which held that an IO cannot delegate his duties under section 117 CPC to another officer. In contrast, the High Court disagreed with the decision in Muhammad Nasrul where it was held that any officer with knowledge of the case who can respond to the Magistrate's queries may make the remand application. [9] The High Court also referred to the Chief Justice’s Practice Direction No. 11 of 2021 and highlighted that the Practice Direction itself stipulates that a remand application must be made by the IO. In conclusion, the High Court held that the remand proceedings against the respondents at the Magistrates Court violated the provisions of section 117(1) CPC. The High Court emphasised that the learned Magistrate should have dismissed the remand application since it was made by an officer not officially designated as the IO for the case. [10] The High Court therefore held that the respondents’ detention under the remand order was unlawful. Given these findings, the court determined that it was unnecessary to consider the two other issues raised by the respondents. The appeal [11] The central issue in this appeal is whether Section 117(1) of the CPC requires the IO assigned to the case to personally appear before the Magistrate in support of a remand application, or whether another police officer may lawfully do so in his stead. [12] The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court’s interpretation of Section 117(1) was overly rigid and impractical, thus undermining the main purpose of the section. Learned counsel contended that as long as the essential requirements of the section are met, any police officer should be able to conduct the remand proceedings before the Magistrate. The essential requirements include:

transmitting to the Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary; and

producing the accused before the Magistrate. [13] Learned counsel also drew parallels to ‘The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction No. 11 Year 2021’, particularly Rule 4, which outlines the same prerequisites. Rule 4 reads as follows:

Selaras dengan peruntukan seksyen 117 KTJ, Pegawai Penyiasat Polis hendaklah memastikan pematuhan kepada perkara-perkara yang berikut:

sebelum Permohonan Reman didengar di hadapan Majistret, dokumen-dokumen yang berikut telah difailkan melalui sistem e-Kehakiman:

Permohonan Reman;

(ii) salinan diari siasatan yang lengkap di bawah seksyen 119 KTJ; dan

(iii) apa-apa dokumen lain yang permohonan reman tersebut; dan berkaitan dengan

orang yang disyaki ("OYDS") dikemukakan di hadapan Majistret. [14] Learned counsel emphasised that as long as the prerequisites outlined in section 117(1) of the CPC and the relevant Practice Direction are met by the IO, there is no legal requirement for the IO to personally conduct the remand proceedings. Instead, any police officer knowledgeable about the case may handle them. [15] Furthermore, it was argued that the High Court’s strict interpretation of the phrase “police officer making the investigation” as exclusively referring to the IO in charge undermines the main purpose of section 177 of the CPC. This phrase is neither clearly defined in the CPC nor in the applicable Practice Direction. Learned counsel argued that the phrase can have two interpretations: it may refer either to the IO assigned to the case or to any IO present during the remand proceedings who is capable of making the application on behalf of the assigned IO. It was submitted that even if the interpretation of the phrase is to be taken strictly, meaning that only the assigned IO can make the remand application, there is no requirement for the IO to be physically present during the remand proceedings. The IO is only obligated to provide a copy of the police diary to the Magistrate and ensure the attendance of the accused. The primary focus of section 117 is to allow the police to extend the remand order in order to complete the investigation, rather than emphasizing the identity of the officer appearing before the Magistrate. [16] In conclusion, the appellant's learned counsel urged the court to consider the practical challenges faced by the police if only the IO for the case is required to appear before the Magistrate. Requiring the IO to do so within twenty-four hours of an arrest is not feasible, as the IO manages multiple cases and faces operational constraints, particularly due to a lack of sufficient manpower within the police force. [17] Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that this court should favour the High Court's judgment in the case of Re Mohd Nasrul Naim (supra), which held that any police officer may conduct remand proceedings, provided that the officer is authorised and knowledgeable about the circumstances of the remand in order to adequately respond to the Magistrate’s questions. [18] Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the wordings in Section 117 of the CPC is clear and unambiguous, and emphasised that the IO assigned to the case has the responsibility to be present during the remand proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the ordinary and natural meaning of the section should not be compromised for the sake of convenience, and that the literal meaning should be upheld. [19] It was argued that the phrase "police officer making the investigation" is clear and refers explicitly to the IO in charge of that case, rather than any other police officer. Additionally, learned counsel emphasised that Section 117 should be considered in conjunction with Section 117(3) and Section 119(1) of the CPC, where the phrase "police officer making the investigation" appears again. These sections clearly assign the duty to the IO for that specific case only. [20] It was also argued by the respondents' counsel that Section 117(1) of the CPC must be strictly interpreted, as it infringes upon an accused person's liberty. An accused can be detained for up to seven or fourteen days under an order issued by a Magistrate. The counsel contended that Section 117(1) of the CPC was amended in 2006 to prevent the police from misusing their powers through the practice of “arrest first, investigate later”, and to curb the issue of chain remands. [21] The submissions made by the Bar Council, acting as amicus curiae, are largely in agreement with the arguments presented by the respondents. Findings [22] A suspect arrested by the police can only be held in custody for a maximum of twenty-four hours, excluding the time taken to travel from the arrest location to the Magistrate's court, as outlined in section 28(3) of the CPC. If the police require additional time to complete their investigation, they must apply to a Magistrate for an extension of the suspect's detention. This period of detention while the investigation is ongoing is known as “remand”. The statutory framework governing remand proceedings is set out in section 117 of the CPC: Procedure where investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 28 and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded the police officer making the investigation shall immediately transmit to a Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case and shall at the same time produce the accused before the Magistrate.

The Public Prosecutor may appear in any application made under this section.

The Magistrate before whom an accused person is produced under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as follows:

if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with imprisonment of less than fourteen years, the detention shall not be more than four days on the first application and shall not be more than three days on the second application; or

if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of fourteen years or more, the detention shall not be more than seven days on the first application and shall not be more than seven days on the second application.

The officer making the investigation shall state in the copy of the entries in the diary referred to in subsection (1), any period of detention of the accused immediately prior to the application, whether or not such detention relates to the application.

The Magistrate, in deciding the period of detention of the accused person, shall take into consideration any detention period immediately prior to the application, whether or not such detention relates to the application.

The Magistrate in deciding the period of detention of the accused shall allow representations to be made either by the accused himself or through a counsel of his choice.

If the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case and considers further detention unnecessary he may order the accused person to be produced before a Magistrate having such jurisdiction or, if the case is triable only by the High Court, before himself or another Magistrate having jurisdiction with a view to transmission for trial by the High Court.

A Magistrate authorizing under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing. [23] The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction No. 11 of 2021, which came into force on 10 September 2021, is to be read in conjunction with Section 117 of the CPC. The Practice Direction provides comprehensive guidance on the conduct of remand proceedings, and is reproduced in full as follows: ARAHAN AMALAN KETUA HAKIM NEGARA BILANGAN 11 TAHUN 2021 PENGENDALIAN PROSIDING PERMOHONAN REMAN DIBAWAH SEKSYEN 117 KANUN TATACARA JENAYAH

Arahan Amalan ini terpakai bagi pengendalian prosiding Permohonan Reman di bawah seksyen 117 KTJ di seluruh Malaysia.

Dalam Arahan Amalan ini, melainkan jika konteksnya menghendaki makna yang lain— "Majistret" mempunyai erti yang sama sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan dalam Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948; "Permohonan Reman" ertinya apa-apa permohonan yang dikemukakan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat Polis di hadapan Majistret bagi mendapatkan suatu perintah tahanan di bawah seksyen 117 KTJ; "sistem e-Kehakiman" ertinya mana-mana sistem aplikasi Mahkamah yang dibangunkan oleh Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia bagi urusan dan prosiding Mahkamah. TATACARA PENGENDALIAN PROSIDING PERMOHONAN

Selaras dengan peruntukan seksyen 117 KTJ, Pegawai Penyiasat Polis hendaklah memastikan pematuhan kepada perkara-perkara yang berikut:

sebelum Permohonan Reman didengar di hadapan Majistret, dokumen-dokumen yang berikut telah difailkan melalui sistem e-Kehakiman:

Permohonan Reman;

(ii) salinan diari siasatan yang lengkap di bawah seksyen 119 KTJ; dan

(iii) apa-apa dokumen lain yang berkaitan dengan permohonan reman tersebut; dan

orang yang disyaki ("OYDS") dikemukakan di hadapan Majistret.

Sebelum pengendalian prosiding Permohonan Reman dimulakan, OYDS hendaklah mengesahkan kepada Majistret perkara-perkara yang berikut:

bagi OYDS yang mempunyai peguam, OYDS telah diberi peluang untuk menghubungi peguamnya; dan

bagi OYDS yang belum melantik peguam, OYDS telah menyatakan hasrat untuk diwakili oleh mana-mana peguam pilihannya.

Bagi OYDS yang tidak diwakili oleh peguam atau tidak berkeupayaan untuk melantik peguam, OYDS tersebut akan dimaklumkan oleh Majistret akan hak OYDS untuk mendapatkan khidmat bantuan guaman daripada Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan ("YBGK") sekiranya OYDS memenuhi syarat-syarat yang berikut:

OYDS adalah seorang warganegara; dan

OYDS tidak disiasat di bawah mana-mana undang-undang pencegahan, penculikan dan melarikan orang.

Bagi maksud perenggan 5 dan 6, Pegawai Penyiasat Polis hendaklah memastikan bahawa, bagi OYDS yang —

telah melantik peguam, peguam yang mewakili OYDS telah dihubungi;

belum melantik peguam, tetapi berhasrat untuk melantik peguam pilihannya sendiri, peguam tersebut telah dihubungi; atau

berhasrat untuk mendapatkan perkhidmatan peguam YBGK, pihak YBGK telah dihubungi, dan peguam tersebut telah dimaklumkan agar hadir bagi tujuan pengendalian prosiding Permohonan Reman tersebut.

Tertakluk kepada perenggan 7, pengendalian prosiding Permohonan Reman hendaklah ditangguhkan kepada suatu tempoh masa yang munasabah, dalam hari yang sama, bagi membolehkan peguam hadir untuk mewakili OYDS.

Walau apa pun peruntukan dalam perenggan 8, pengendalian prosiding Permohonan Reman akan diteruskan sekiranya—

OYDS tidak mahu diwakili oleh peguam dan/atau enggan mendapatkan khidmat bantuan guaman YBGK; atau

tiada peguam yang hadir setelah tempoh masa munasabah diberikan.

Semasa mengendalikan prosiding Permohonan Reman, Majistret hendaklah dimaklumkan oleh—

Pegawai Penyiasat Polis berkaitan dengan status Permohonan Reman tersebut sama ada ia adalah suatu Permohonan Reman baharu atau lanjutan;

OYDS berkaitan dengan layanan terhadapnya semasa dalam tahanan pihak polis; dan

OYDS berkaitan dengan keadaan kesihatannya.

Bagi maksud perenggan 10(c), sekiranya Majistret mendapati bahawa OYDS memerlukan rawatan, Pegawai Penyiasat Polis hendaklah memastikan bahawa OYDS tersebut dibawa ke hospital bagi tujuan pemeriksaan dan rawatan yang sewajarnya.

Semasa pengendalian prosiding Permohonan Reman, Peguam OYDS hendaklah mengemukakan representasi kepada Majistret.

Tanpa menjejaskan kuasa dan budi bicara untuk mempertimbangkan Permohonan Reman serta menetapkan tempoh bagi apa-apa perintah reman yang akan diberikan, Majistret dalam menjalankan kuasanya boleh membuat rujukan kepada keputusan-keputusan kes Mahkamah Atasan yang terkini dan Bench Book (Criminal Law) yang dikeluarkan oleh Badan Kehakiman Malaysia yang menyentuh mengenai isu reman. SUSUNAN KEUTAMAAN BAGI PENGENDALIAN PROSIDING

Dalam ketiadaan Majistret, prosiding Permohonan Reman yang melibatkan siasatan berkenaan apa-apa kesalahan jenayah—

yang boleh dihukum dengan hukuman mati atau penjara untuk tempoh 14 tahun atau lebih;

yang melibatkan OYDS yang merupakan individu berprofil tinggi;

di bawah Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 [Akta 694]; dan

yang disifatkan sebagai berkepentingan awam, hendaklah dikendalikan oleh Majistret ex-officio mengikut keutamaan seperti yang berikut:

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen;

Timbalan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi di Malaya (bagi Permohonan Reman di Semenanjung Malaysia sahaja);

Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi di Malaya (bagi Permohonan Reman di Semenanjung Malaysia sahaja);

Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah Rendah; atau

mana-mana pegawai lain seperti yang disenaraikan di bawah