Dear Editor,
AS A law student, i am confused over how a recent attempted attempted murder in Keningau was being rubbed all a way to a court.
"Daily Express reported (DE 18.9.11) which a singular mom who has child was stabbed to death during her home. A troops examiner who came to her aid in Taman Adika, Keningau, was additionally harmed in which incident. That troops military officer was after remanded underneath Section 117 of a Criminal Procedure Code for an alleged corruption underneath Section 302 of a Penal Code for serve investigating. The examiner was afterwards relesed upon troops bail, maybe tentative reports of post mortem as well as DNA.
Isn't this double standards in enforcing criminal procedure laws upon persons indicted of murder? My Understanding is which if a chairman is arrested as well as remanded for an offence, afterwards there contingency be a little justification of a crime committed by which chairman opposite whom a remand sequence had been obtained. Or there contingency have been sufficient grounds for his arrest.
As i assimilate it, investigations embark soon as a troops inform is lodged as well as statements have been raken by a troops from a chairman who has been remanded or from witnesses though a troops inform is not a contingency for any troops review to start.
When there is a open cheer or when a chairman is murdered, a troops contingency embark evident review as happened in this box with or without a inform being lodged.
When a examiner was arrested by thir very own investigating officers, really a review authorities need to review to Sect! ion twen ty-three (1) of a Criminal Procedure Code which provides which where any seizable corruption has been committed anywhere in Malaysia, any troops military officer or penghulu might detain without a warrant any chairman who has been concerned in any such corruption or againtst whom a in accord with censure has been done or opposite whom convincing inform has been received or opposite whom a in accord with guess exist.
'Credible information' (Maklumat yang boleh dipercayai) means which a inform is arguable or can be believed. With courtesy to 'Reasonable suspicion' when an objective exam is applied, a in accord with man would have suspected which a remand detainee might have committed a act.
Once review has been finished during a remand duration as well as prior to a expire of a remand sequence a review papers have been sent to a Deputy Public Prosecutor's office for their last say upon either to charge a indicted in court.
If there is in accord with belligerent for a Deputy Public Prosecutor to hold which a examiner has been guilty of an corruption punishable with death or seizure for life, afterwards a Inspector should not be expelled upon bail though remanden tentative alternative reports to be completed.
After obtaining a DNA or chemist inform as well as after celebration of a mass a review paper thoroughly as well as if a DPP sees no prima Facie box has been determined opposite a Inspector, usually afterwards he shall be expelled completely by giving DAA.
The examiner is to be detained usually if there is prima facie justification opposite him. The corruption underneath Section 302 of a Penal Code is unbailable as well as there is no discretion upon the! courts or a troops to grant bail in such circumstances if there is a prima facie cae opposite a inspector.
There is no such thing as DPP carrying powers to authorise a troops a grant troops bail to a pronounced Inspector for an corruptio! n commit ted underneath Section 302 of a Penal Code if a DNA or Chemist reports have been not nonetheless available.
In this case, there appears guess which a Inspector has committed a crime underneath Section 302 of a Penal Code. Hence, it was crude to grant a Inspector Police bail tentative a DNA as well as pos mortem reports.
In all cases, it has been a norm which suspects in attempted attempted murder cases have been remanded in a prison tentative a result of post-mortem inform as well as DNA inform because there is bound to be serve justification performed from such investigation.
The DNA as well as Post-mortem reports will usually act to uphold alternative justification performed by a police. Unless what I learnt in law schools is rubbish, it was wrong to release a indicted upon troops bail tentative a result of DNA as well as chemist report.
If there is no justification during all to link a troops Inspector to a c! rime, th en a contingency be guven a certification of 'NFA' by a Deputy Public Prosecutor's Office. If no Such obligation is since or minuted in a review paper, afterwards a process of granting troops bail to an indicted tentative DNA as well as Post-Mortem inform is wrong in law, if there is a little justification to link a indicted to a Crime.
Reference is done to Article 8 (1) of a sovereign Constitution which states "All chairman have been next to prior to a law.
"Therefore it is pronounced which a expelled of a pronounced Police Inspector upon Police bail contradicts Article 8(1) of a sovereign Constitution. Suffian LP in Public Prosecutor V. Khong Teng Khen [1976]2 MLJ 166 said:
"The element underlying Article 8 is which a law contingency work alike upon all chairman underneath similar to circumtances, not simply which it contingency work alike upon all chairman in any circumstances, nor which it contingency be general in impression as well as concept in app! lication as well as which a state is no longer to have a power of specifying as well as classifying person... for a purpose of legislation, kedar Nath V.State of West Bengal AIR [1953] sc 404, 406."
In My opinion, a law might systematise chairman in to children, juveniles as well as adults, as well as yield opposite criteria for last their criminal guilt or a mode of trying them o! r retaliate ing them if found guilty; a law might systematise chairman in to women as well as men, or in to wive as well as husbands, as well as yield opposite right as well as liabilities attaching to a standing of any class; a law might systematise offences in to opposite categories as well as prostat which a little offences be triable in a magistrate's court, others in a session court, as well as nonetheless alternative in a high court:
The law might yield which sure offences be triable even in a troops court; mercantile law might divive a town in to opposite areas as well as yield which ratepayers in a single area compensate a aloft a reduce rate than those of an additional area, as well as in a box of income taxation yield which millionaires compensate some-more taxation than others; as well as nonetheless in my settlement in none of these cases can a law be pronounced to violate Article 8.
All which Article 8 guarantees is which a chairman in a single category should be treated with colour a same as an additional chairman in a same class, so which a youthful contingency be attempted similar to an additional juvenile, a ratepayer in a single area should compensate a same rate as paid by an additional ratepayer in a same area, as well as a milionaire a same income taxation as an additional milionaire, as well as so on.
I am sure a open is watching each step a law coercion authorities have been receiving as well as it appears to my tyro mind which where a chairman wields power as well as influence, a law is abused.
As a open as well as m! ultitude gets some-more as well as some-more learned similar to me, a question upon equivalence prior to a law will turn a tables upon a authorities as well as their firmness will be questioned by a public.
Best Regards,
LAW STUDENT
- Sabahkini
Read More @ SourceMore Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
No comments:
Post a Comment