At the trial of Sunkis on 17 December 2010 for the offence under Section 29 (1) Minor Offences Act, Sunkis

in his defence, stated I was not the owner of the clothing where the ring was hidden. That day, a sudden down-pour of rain had drenched my clothing and what I was wearing at the time of the search had been loaned by a friend. f) Assume that you are Astro. Decide whether Sunkis should or should not be acquitted if at the trial, the following documents were not tendered as part of the prosecution case:i) Insp Alfas police report The issue arose is whether Insp. Alfas police report is First Information Report and nontendering it amount to acquittal of Sunkis. Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) stated that information relating to the offences need to be taken and reduced in writing. Meanwhile Section 108A of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that a certified true copy of First Information Report taken under Section 107 can be take as an evidence and admissible during trial. In the case of PP v Kang Ho Soh, the court held that any report other than First Information Report is inadmissible under Section 108A of the Criminal Procedure Code and non-tendering it during trial is not fatal. Applying to the situation, as Insp. Alfas police report is only an arrest report and not a First Information Report, thus, the report is inadmissible and non-tendering it would not be fatal to the prosecution and not amounting to an acquittal of Sunkis during trial.

ii) The search list (had one been issued) Whether non-production of the search list will be fatal to the prosecution case and amount to acquittal of Sunkis during trial. The general rule as stated in Section 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) said that a list of thing that had been seized in course of search shall be prepared by the officer or the other person making the search and sign by him. There are two situations involved in this case. The situations are when the prosecution case has the other witness or evidence to be present to the court; they not need to tender the search list during the prosecution case. However, if there is no any other evidence provided during the prosecution case, non-tendering the search list might cause the case to be fatal and strike-out. By referring to the case of San Soo Ha v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 34 one of the issues arose is the absence of the strip search on the prosecution case. RAJA AZLAN SHAH J stated that; the failure to comply with the provisions relating to search list may cast doubt upon the bona fides of the parties conducting the search and accordingly affords ground for scrutiny; but if after close scrutiny the court arrives at the conclusion that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused person, it is obviously no defence to say that the evidence was obtained in an irregular manner. There is nothing in the law which makes such evidence inadmissible From the statement by the learned judge, it can be concluded that, the absence of the search list will not strike out or made the prosecution case being fatal but it will affect the prosecution case because it may cause a doubt on the bona fide statement by the person that had been conducting the search of which in the situation, Insp Alfa and Constable Beta. In applying to the situation, as there is other witnesses ie Constable Beta and Insp Alfa, non-production of search list will not be fatal to the prosecution, thus not amounting to an acquittal of Sunkis at the end of the trial.