Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA TAIPING
PP – Appellant
Versus
CHANDRASEGARAN SUNTHIRAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the applications pertained to the identity of the accused in the context of an existing death sentence. (Para 2 , 8) |
| 2. the proceedings involve identity issues related to a death sentence. (Para 3) |
| 3. the established identity of the accused throughout proceedings is vital to the judgment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. the court found the need to preserve previous legal determinations. (Para 10 , 19) |
| 5. the court's authority and jurisdiction on the validity of prior judgments is paramount. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 37) |
| 6. amendment of the warrant of commitment is not permitted post-conviction without undermining legal principles. (Para 22 , 39) |
| 7. the identity of the accused as ms was confirmed through multiple proceedings. (Para 26) |
| 8. amendments to the warrant are not valid without proving legal basis. (Para 30 , 32 , 34) |
[2] The other Criminal Application No AB-44-9-05-2019 is by Chandrasegaran a/l Sunthiran (CS) with NRIC No 670502-08-6549, the respondent to the present application, for a writ of habeas corpus. The said application was dismissed by this court. He has appealed to the Federal court against that decision pursuant to s 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593;
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
