Shaik Daud Ismail JCA:

This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor from the decision of the High Court which had rejected an application by the Public Prosecutor, to exercise its revisionary powers.

The facts of the case are that on 14 April 1994 as a result of a police report vide Jalan Bandar report No. 6191/94, the police arrested one Lim Chin Teik, the husband of the respondent in this appeal. On 5 May 1994 the said Lim Chin Teik was formerly charged in the Session Court Kuala Lumpur for an offence of criminal breach of trust under s. 409 of the Penal Code. He claimed to be tried and was released on bail of RM500,000.

In the course of their investigation, the police ascertained that the respondent herein was in possession of share scripts and money pertaining to the criminal breach of trust case. On 29 April 1994 the respondent turned up at Bukit Aman where her husband the said Lim Chin Teik was detained, and allegedly agreed that she would surrender all share certificates and cash RM70,000.

She failed to do so and thereafter never turned up at Bukit Aman. On 11 May 1994 at about 10.30am Corporal 64212 Hamidah bt. Abdul Rahman happened to meet the respondent at Block K13, Magistrate's Court, Jalan Duta and immediately arrested her. She was taken into custody and on the next day 12 May 1994 at about 8.15 am she was produced before the Registrar Puan Fadzilah Masaya bt. Mazlan for her to be detained further under s. 117 Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

The learned Registrar rejected the application on the sole ground that the arrest of the respondent was unlawful and directed the respondent to be released. Against this order of the Registrar the Public Prosecutor applied to the High Court for the learned judge to exercise his revisionary powers, under s. 325 CPC. After hearing arguments, the learned judge agreed with the Registrar's finding and order and declined to exercise his revisionary powers.

This appeal is on a fundamental point of law on the arrest and detention under s. 117 CPC. Section 117 provides:

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twentyfour hours fixed by s. 28 and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded the police officer making the investigation shall forthwith transmit to the Magistrate a copy of the enteries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case and shall at the same time produce the accused before the Magistrate;

(2) The Magistrate before whom an accused person is produced under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole.

If he has no jurisdiction to try the case and considers further detention unnecessary he may order the accused person to be produced before a Magistrate having such jurisdiction or, if the case is triable only by the High Court, before himself or another Magistrate having jurisdiction with a view to committal for trial by the High Court;

(3) A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.

(The emphasis is ours)

The issue before the High Court and before us is whether the learned Registrar was right in law in rejecting the application for further detention of the respondent on the ground that her arrest was unlawful. The learned judge was of the view that in order for a Magistrate to exercise her discretion under s. 117 CPC the arrest in the first place must be a lawful arrest. The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor submitted before us that it was not the duty of the Magistrate at that stage, ie, application under s. 117 CPC, to question the legality or otherwise of the arrest. We agree with the contention of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor. On our peru