1. Conduct of Proceeding
PP v Datuk Hj Harun bin Hj Idris & Ors
[1976] 2 MLJ 116
“the conduct of the prosecutions in court and
does not refer to the regulation of the criminal
procedure or of the jurisdiction of the courts or the
power or discretion to do so. In its plain meaning,
to conduct means to lead, guide or manage.”

2.  ‘conduct’ conveys the idea that the person
who conducts the prosecution determines
all important questions of policy involved
in the course of the trial and the attitude to
be adopted by the prosecution towards
material objections raised or demands by
the accused with respect to the evidence.

3. Conduct of Proceeding
Who is competent to conduct criminal prosecutions?
Pre 1/4/1998
 S.377CPC: every criminal prosecution shall be
conducted:
a. PP,SDPP,DPP or APP;
b. With written authority of the PP for seizable offences:
1. an advocate
2. a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector
3. an officer of any Govt. department
4. an officer of any statutory body or authority; or
5. any person employed or retained by any local
authority or any statutory authority or body

4.  Prosecution by Private person
-s.380 CPC states that any private person may
appear in person or by advacate and prosecute
for a non seizable offence against his own
person or property in the Magistrate’s Court

5. Issue: Whether any other authority apart from
the PP may be lawfully empowered to conduct
a prosecution?
 Repco Holding Bhd v PP [1997] 3 MLJ 681
Repco was charged by the SC for an offence under the Securities
Industries Act 1983 (SIA). At the hearing , counsel for Repco
objected to the locus standi of the officers of the SC who
appeared to prosecute.
S.126(2)SIA and s.39(2) Securities Commission Act 1993 (SCA)
allow, inter alia, the prosecution of any offence under the Acts
by any officer authorised by the Registrar of Companies or the
Chairman of the Securties Commission.
Issue: whether s.126(2) SIA and s.39(2) SCA were ultra vires Art
145(3) of the Federal Constitution and therefore void.

6.  Gopal Sri Ram JCA:
1. s.126(2) SIA and s.39(2) SCA to be ultra vires Art.
145(3) FC and void.
2. If the Registrar of Companies is a gazetted DPP and
conducts the prosecutions for an offence under SIA,
then it was intra vires.
3. The Chairman of the Securities Commission is not
authorised constitutionally to authorised or conduct
prosecutions under SIA
4. Members and servants of the Securities Commission
are public officer, they do not fall within the s.380(1)
CPC to allow them to conduct prosecution.

7.  Repco was followed in Quek Gin Hong v PP
[1998] 4 MLJ 161
- authorisation given by the Director General of
the Department of Environment was void for
being inconsistent with Art 145(3) FC and such
defect was incurable under Sect 422(a) and (b)
CPC

8. Post 1/4/1998: Sect 380A CPC
 Provisions in s.377 and s.380 shall prevail
notwithstanding any inconsistencies in any
written law.

9. Who is competent to conduct Criminal Appeal
 S.378 CPC only the PP, SDPP,DPP can
appear on criminal appeal
 A police officer not below the rank of
Inspector or an advocate with written
authority of the PP or DPP

10. Power on how to conduct criminal proceedings
 Art 145(3) FC and s376 CPC : wide discretionary power
to conduct criminal proceedings.
- To call a particular witness
- Adel Muhammed el Dabbah v AG for Palestine [1944]
AC 156
- DSAI v PP (No 4) [1999] 5 MLJ 545
- To produce a particular documents or things as evidence
- Impeach witness.

11. Discontinuance of Proceedings
 Art 145(3) FC : PP has discretionary power to
discontinue any proceedings of an offence
 S254(1) and (2) CPC : PP may, if he thinks fit,
discontinue proceedings at any stage of the trial
before judgment

12.  Another instance whereby the Public Prosecutor may
discontinue prosecutions is where the public prosecutor
withdraws the remaining charges after a conviction has
been secured on one or more charges against the
accused.
 Under section 171 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
such withdrawal shall have the same effect of an
acquittal on the remaining charges unless the conviction
is set aside.

13. LIMITATION ON THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTION’S POWERS
 Doctrine of Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court.
PP v Lee Tin Bau [1985] 1 MLJ 388
Gunn Chit Tuan J (as he then was) altered the charges
under section 57(1) Internal Security Act 1960 to
charges under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act
He was of the opinion that based on the circumstances
of the cases, the two charges preferred against the
accused under the ISA were done with mala fides on the
part of the prosecution as the accused had almost
served sentences to three related cases of the same
nature.

14.  Gunn Chit Tuan J was of the view that the
Prosecutor’s act was an abuse of the process of
court. He further observed that since the
accused had almost served his sentence, it would
be prejudicial and oppressive to the accused if
the original charges were not altered

15. the Court has warned itself to be careful when applying
the above doctrine
 Abdul Hamid LP in the case of Karpal & Patto v PP
[1991] 2 MLJ 544 (SC). His Lordship was of the
opinion that the High Court may invoke such
prerogative powers only in rare instances where it is
right to do justice to the accused. The inherent power
can only be invoked if it does not override the express
provision of law or when there is another remedy
available.

16. Plea of autrefois acquit/ autrefois convict
 doctrine is enshrined in Article 7(2) of the
Federal Constitution and section 302 of the
Criminal Procedure Code
 principle of law must be observed by the Public
Prosecutor although he may charge an accused
person for as many offences as the evidence can
prove
8.0charge-mind map.ppt