The court upheld the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General, emphasizing the absence of evidence for claims of mala fides in the prosecution, affirming that judicial intervention requires substantial proof.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in refusing an application by the appellant by way of Motion in a Criminal Application for the Court to exercise the discretionary powers under its inherent jurisdiction and under s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC"). The reliefs sought by the appellant at the High Court read as follows:

1. That this Honourable Court makes an order that the criminal charge and prosecution against the applicant under s 97(1) of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 and punishable under s 103(1)(a) of the same Act that is read together with Serial Number 126 of the Fourth Schedule of the same Act at the Shah Alam Sessions Court, Criminal Case No: 62D-(213 & 214)-07-2012 is stayed and/or set aside and quashed;

2. Further that the Honourable Court orders that the applicant be discharged and acquitted;

3. That the proceeding of Criminal Case No: 62-D(213 & 214)-07-2012 at the Shah Alam Sessions Court is stayed until the hearing of this motion is completed;

4. Any other orders and/or reliefs deemed fit and proper by the Honourable Court.

[2] The above application was heard by way of affidavit evidence; and the grounds forwarded by the appellant in support of his application, are briefly as follows:

(a) The criminal proceeding is an abuse of process and travesty of justice. It is the courts' duty to ensure there should be a fair trial according to law and further to protect and promote the dignity and integrity of the criminal justice process and judicial system.

(b) The said charge against the applicant is against public policy because the applicant is a whistle blower who had in good faith exercised his duty to the public to disclose serious acts of corruption and abuse of power involving public funds.

(c) The said charge against the applicant is politically motivated, an act of selective prosecution, done in bad faith, undermines the rule of law, and therefore ought not to be accepted by the courts.

[3] After reading the Appeal Records, including the written submissions filed by both parties and upon hearing oral submissions from the appellant's counsel, we dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons for doing so.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[4] The brief facts of the case, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant and not disputed by the respondent are as follows:

On 1 August 2012, the applicant was arrested and charged at the Shah Alam Sessions Court together with one Johari bin Mohamad under s 97(1) of Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 ("BAFIA") and punishable under s 103(1)(a) of the same Act and read together with Serial Number 126 of the Fourth Schedule for having access to and revealing the said documents on 7 March 2012 to reporters of the following Public Bank Berhad banking documents:

(a) Customer Profile - Balance Summary of National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd;

(b) Customer Profile - Balance Summary of National Meat and Livestock Sdn Bhd;

(c) Customer Profile - Balance Summary of Agroscience Industries Sdn Bhd;

(d) Customer Profile - Balance Summary of Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail.

The directors and/or major shareholders of the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd ("NFC"), Agroscience Industries Sdn Bhd and National Meat and Livestock Corporation Sdn Bhd comprise Datuk Seri Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail, the husband of Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, then Women, Family and Community Development Minister and their two sons and daughter.

On 24 October 2011, the 2010 Auditor's General Report was released to the public and the media highlighted the issues raised including on the National Feedlot Centre and NFC. NFC was provided with a loan of RM250 million from the government to inter alia establish and operate