The court determined that the procedural requirements under Section 45C(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 are mandatory, and failure to comply results in a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

Bhupindar Singh Gurcharan Singh Preet J:

Introduction

[1] On 4 March 2022, the appellant was convicted for an offence under s 45A(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (" RTA ", in this judgment, the provisions refer to the unless otherwise stated). He was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment and fined RM 10,000.00 in default six months imprisonment. All classes of his driving licence were suspended for two years from the date of conviction. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed against the said decision. The learned Magistrate granted a stay of execution for the imprisonment sentence pending the disposal of the appeal with the bail of RM5,000.00.

[2] The charge against the appellant reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 1 Januari 2021 jam lebih kurang 01.25 hrs diJalan Sultan Iskandar, Ipoh sebagai pemandu motokar KBM 2662 telah memandu kenderaan tersebut dimana kadar alkohol dalam darah di dalam badan kamu dldapati sebanyak 151mg alkohol dalam 100ml darah, iaitu lebih 101 mg daripada had yang ditetapkan iaitu 50mg/100ml dan oleh yang demikian itu, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dibawah s 45A(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Akta yang sama (Pindaan 2020)."

Background Facts

[3] From 31 December 2020 at about 11 pm until 1 January 2021 at 3 am, Insp Amir Ridhwan bin Abd Aziz (PW3) with his team, comprising Cpl. Hassan bin A. Rahman (PW1), Cpl. Mahadir bin Bakhtir (PW2), Sgt. Balakrishnan, Sgt. Kamal and L/Cpl. Rais conducted a roadblock operation at Jalan Sultan Iskandar, Ipoh.

[4] At about 1.25 am, PW1 stopped the appellant's car bearing the registration number KBM 2662 for not switching on the front lights According to PW1, the appellant was not normal as he did not answer the questions asked and smelled of alcohol. PW3 then directed PW2 to drive the appellant to Chamberlain Traffic Police Station ("police station") for a breath test. Upon arriving at the police station, PW2 handed the appellant to PW3.

[5] At the police station, PW3 requested the appellant to sit beside him and explained to the appellant the offence committed by him. Subsequently, PW3 asked the appellant to provide a breath test using the Evidential Breath Analyzer ("EBA") to detect the alcohol level in the appellant's body. The EBA test revealed that the content of alcohol in the appellant's body was 151 mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood. The amount of alcohol in the appellant's body exceeded 101 mg of the prescribed limit under the RTA . After concluding the breath test, PW3 handed over the case to the investigation officer, Inspector Jong Pit Chiao (PW4), for further investigation.

Issue And Findings Of The Court

Whether Section 45C(1) of the RTA Is Directory Or Mandatory

[6] The core issue in this appeal is whether s 45C(1)(a) is mandatory.Whether it must be read together with s 45B(1) to prove an offence under s 45A(1). The prosecution argued that once a police officer complies with s 45B(1) and the amount of alcohol is above the prescribed limit, it is adequate to secure a conviction under s 45A(1). There is no necessity to follow the procedure set out in s 45C(1). The prosecution relied on the judgment of the learned Magistrate, where she decided:

"28. Mahkamah telah meneliti isu ini dan mendapati hujah peguambela adaiah tidak bermerit. Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa pertuduhan bagi kes ini adalah mudah yang mana ujian hembusan nafas yang dijalankan di dalam kes ini adalah ditadbir mengikut s 45B APJ.

45. Seperti yang telah dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah berpandangan ujian nafas bagi pertuduhan kes ini adalah ditadbir mengikut s 45B APJ yang lebih ringkas Dapat dilihat dengan jelas pemakaian s 45C APJ adalah panduan khas semasa siasatan, dengan kata lain ujian nafas dijalankan atas permintaan pegawai siasatan semasa siasatan kes seperti siasatan dibawah s 44 dan s 45 APJ.

49. Oleh itu, memandangkan s 45C APJ tidak terpakai maka pematuhan prosedur pengambilan ujian nafas seperti dalam Jadual Pertama Kaedah 4 KKM 1995