The court affirmed the DNAA order, establishing that a magistrate's denial of a discharge upon an adjournment request is lawful when the prosecution still intends to proceed, referencing relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Introduction

[1] This is an application for a revision under s 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ) against a DNAA order passed by Johor Bahru Magistrate Court on 24 September 2024.

[2] The Applicant was charged in the Johor Bahru Magistrate Court on 19 June 2023 for an offence under s 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ( DDA ) for having inserted Ketamine into himself.

[3] Having heard submissions from both parties, this Court has decided to dismiss Applicant's application and affirmed the Order passed by the Magistrate on 24 September 2024,

[4] Aggrieved by this Court decision, the Applicant has filed an appeal. Herewith the Court reasons for dismissal.

The Charge

[5] For ease of reference, below is reproduction of the Charge against the Applicant in the Magistrate Court:

"Bahawa kamu pada 6 August 2021 jam lebih kurang 10.55 pagi bertempat di Pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik IPD Johor Bahru Selatan, di dalam daerah Johor Bharu, dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim telah didapati memasukan dadah berbahaya ke dalam diri kamu sendiri iaitu jenis Ketamine. Dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen dan akta yang sama."

Brief Facts Of The Case

[6] The Applicant was first charged in the Magistrate's Court on 25 August 2021 under case number JA-82D-49-08/2021 (1st case) for the offence as stated above.However, the case was dismissed on 13 December 2022, for the Prosecution was not prepared to conduct trial and non-appearance of their witness/es. That's how the 1st case was abruptly ended and the Order of DNAA was passed by the Magistrate.

[7] Later, on 19 June 2023 the Applicant was once again charged with the same offence under a new case number JA-82D-21-06/2023 (2nd case). Fortunate enough the case went on trial and two (2) of the Prosecution witnesses gave evidence. On 24 September 2024, when left with one (1) witness i.e the Investigation Officer (Insp Sivasankar a/I Mohana Dass) to give evidence before the conclusion of the prosecution case, the Prosecution applied for an adjournment as the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) incharge was occupied with an Appeal in High Court 2, Johor Bahru.

[9] Following the application by the DPP, counsel for the Applicant requested for an Order of Discharge And Aquittai (DAA) instead, on the ground that this is the 2nd case against the Applicant, for the same offence. In his request, the Counsel quoted the first case on 13 December 2022 which the Magistrate has passed the Order of DNAA instead of an adjournment. Since this is the second time the case could not go on under the same offence, it is only fair that the Applicant be set free otherwise the Charge would forever be latching onto him. Therefore, an order of DAA rather than DNAA, should be granted to the Applicant.

[10] Unfortunately,the Magistrate denied that application and ordered a DNAA as against the Applicant. Hence, this revision.

Applicant's Arguments

[11] Whether the Court has jurisdiction under s 259 of the CPC to order a Disharge and Aquittal (DAA) of a case in circumstances where an adjournment requested by the Prosecution was not granted.

[12] Under what circumstances can the Court grant a Disharge and Aquittal (DAA)?

[13] Whether the Magistrate has erred in law when passing an Order of DNAA after rejecting the Prosecution's request for an adjournment under s 259 of the CPC .

Respondents' Reasons

[14] Whether the Magistrate was right to disch