KOH TECK CHAI v PP

FACT
Appellant (detective corporal) was discharged not amounting to an acquittal on an
application by the prosecuting officer. Then he appealed to HC about the order of the
learned Magistrate. Counsel for appellant strongly objected thereto and submitted that
no grounds had been given. Order should be DAA.
A short adjournment was granted and the prosecuting officer on resumption gave as the
reasons for his request:
i) First that a civilian witness was still untraced and subpoena had not been served and
ii) Secondly it was intended probably to proceed against the appellant by way of
departmental action.
The learned Magistrate gave as his ground for not granting appellant's Counsel's
requested that "I held I had no power under the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge
the accused, amounting to an acquittal without a trial".

ISSUE
Whether the discharge should amount to acquittal?

HELD
1. POWER ENABLING DNAA / DAA ONLY WHERE COURT IS SATISFIED
2. GOOD CAUSE = PUBLIC INTEREST = REASONABLE TIME

Section 254 CPC

The learned Magistrate had in so holding misconstrued the case of Kuppusamy v. Public
Prosecutor.
S.254 memang suatu peruntukkan
yang

governs

hak

budi

bicara

pendakwaan untuk tidak meneruskan

apa-apa proceeding dan ianya bukan
hak

mahkamah

untuk

berbuat

demikian. TAPI s 254 (1) & s 254 (2)

EFFECT?

KOH TECK CHAI :

s 254 (3)

DNAA

DNAA unless the

court so directs

should

be

used

sparingly, grudgingly & only if

court is satisfied.

adalah berbeza. KENAPA?

S. 254 (1)
NO DISCRETION ON PART OF COURT
COURT SHALL CONTINUE/

S. 254 (2)
COURT HAS SOME DISCRETION
COURT MAY REFUSE TO CONTINUE/

DISCONTINUE THE PROCEEDING

WHEN? At any stage of any trial,

DISCONTINUE THE PROCEEDING

WHEN? At any stage before Sessions/

before delivery of judgment

Magistrates court to decide

**PROSECUTION NOT NECESSARY TO

**COURT SHOULD GRANT A SHORT

GIVE REASON. COURT CANNOT COMPELL ADJOURNMENT (REASONABLE TIME)

PROSECUTION TO GIVE REASON
It is actually in s.254 (2) if the application was made under that so that it is clear
that the learned Magistrate had power to order an acquittal.
Unless very good ground is shown it would not be right to leave an individual for
an indefinite period with a charge hanging over him.
In the circumstances of this case of the learned Magistrate should be varied so that the
discharge should amount to an acquittal (DAA)
Principle laid down in PP v. Suppiah Pather:
If the prosecution are not ready to proceed with their case after reasonable adjournments have been granted, an
accused person should not be allowed to suffer from the dilatoriness of the prosecution by being left with a
charge hanging over his head indefinitely.
Where the prosecution are unable to proceed for the time being owing to the difficulty of obtaining a witness or for
some other cause and are unable to satisfy the Court that they will proceed with the prosecution within a
reasonable time, then there would be good grounds for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal. In this case,
however, although Counsel apparently only asked for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal I think the proper order
would have been a discharge amounting to an acquittal.

TIMELINE

- Long delay shows PP not interested to

Committed offense - 28 July 1966

continue the prosecution

Applied summon - 22 December 1966

- Reasonable time given to decide whether

Called - 13 June 1967

to continue / discontinue PP failed to do

so court order an acquittal

PUBLIC INTEREST = SOMETHING TO DO WITH HIS CAREER AS POLICE OFFICER
The court opined that if the PP discontinues the proceedings, it is appropriate to grant a
discharge amounting to an acquittal and not DNAA as it is not right to have a charge
hanging over him unless a very good ground is shown. Regarding to witness issue, it
incurred expenses in connection with the attendance. (WITNESS BECOME
UNAVAILABLE)
ORDER OF DAA SUBTITUTED