LAW 546

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I
JUNE 2014 QUESTION 1
QUESTION 1
At the trial before Tolstoy:
i. Minah gives evidence but her police report was not
produced.
ii. Beta, the bus drive gave evidence
iii. Constable Omega also gave evidence but did not
produce his report
If you were the magistrate presiding over the trial,
would you:
i. Consider non-production by Constable Omega of his
report fatal;
ii. Convict Oren of theft
i. Consider non-production by Constable
Omega of his report fatal;
• Section 107 of CPC – explain a bit la
• Herchun Singh v PP - to put police investigation into
motion
• PP V Kang Ho Soh – report after arrest has been made is
not FIR
• Explain – when fir should be lodged as 107 is silent on time
• Should be lodged at the earliest opportunity
• THUS, Constable’s Omega report is not considered as an FIR
as it was made after arrest has been made. EXPLAIN TIME
OREN AND APEL WAS ARRESTED.
• (put facts in case don malas)
 WHY NEED TO TENDER FIR
• Section 157 of EA ( LAW PUT IN FRONT)
• Section 155(c) of EA
• Not substantive evidence and its evidentiary value is only to contradict or
to corroborate witness’s testimony (Ooi Hock Leong v R [1995] MLJ 229)
• IF NOT, Section 114(g) of EA will be invoked – Tan Cheng Hooi v Pp
• Not enough application
• Since this is not an FIR, non tendering of this evidence is not fatal to
case by virtue of PP v Balachandran. (explain time, relate with facts

• Highlight some usage of non-fir, why ?

• Conclusion, since constables’ report is non fir, non tedering not fatal
ii. Convict Oren of theft
i. Minah gives evidence but her police report was
not produced.
ii. Discuss when she lodged report relate to 107
– Minah’s report = FIR (discuss time)(relate facts)
– FIR is not essential if there’s no requirement to
corroborate witness’s testimony. (PP V
Balachandran)
– No one can corroborate her statements as she was
only witness.
– If FIR is made but not produced, it would be fatal to
the PP’s case if the witness is a fundamental and
important witness. (PP v Abdul Razak Johari [1991]
1 MLJ 107) compare with facts of questions.
ii. Convict Oren of theft
i. Beta, the bus drive gave evidence
ii. - is beta a witness ?
iii. Can he corroborate minah’s statement even
when her FIR is not tendered ?
ii. Convict Oren of theft
• Constable Omega arrest: -
– Sec 109. (1)
any police officer not below the rank of
sergeant…may without the order of the public
prosecutor exercise all or any of the special powers
in relation to police investigations in any seizable
case.
– “May arrest w/out warrant” = seizable offence
– Sec 110 (1) – Delegation of power of police officer
ii. Convict Oren of theft
• Pat-down search of Oren
• Sec 110 (1) – Delegation of power of police
officer
• Inspector Oscar directed Constable Omega to
conduct a pat-down search that leads to the
discovery of Olga’s purse from Oren’s pocket.

• However, they did not discover Minah’s

RM500
Conclusion
• No conviction against Oren
 FIR by Minah was not tendered
 Beta’s unlawful private arrest x
 Unlawful arrest by Constable Omega x
 No evidence was discovered from the pat-down
search that belongs to Minah x