Syed Othman FJ:

The petitioner was charged with another in the Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur with offences of house breaking by night under s. 457 of the Penal Code. He first appeared before the Court in September 1978. He engaged Counsel in October 1978 who then application to the Deputy Public Prosecutor for copies of the cautioned statement made by the petitioner to the police and of the statements recorded by the police from witnesses in the course of investigation (which for brevity I shall call police statements). The Deputy Public Prosecutor denied the request. When the case came up on 25 October 1978, Counsel applied to the Court for an order directing the prosecution to supply the petitioner with copies of the statements. The learned president dismissed the application. The petitioner now seeks revision of the dismissal.

Before me, the petitioner only pursues the application for copies of police statements. The application for the cautioned statement has been withdrawn as on the day of hearing the arguments, I indicated that the Lord President was dealing with a similar application in another criminal case and would be giving his opinion soon. The Lord President has now given his judgment. In Khoo Siew Bee & Anor. v. Ketua Police, Kuala Lumpur [1979] 2 MLJ 49 Suffian LP has ruled that an accused person is entitled as of right to a copy of his cautioned statement.

For the contention that in a summary trial before the subordinate Courts the accused person is entitled to be supplied by the prosecution with copies of police statements, Encik Sri Ram, for the petitioners, mainly relies on Anthony Gomez v. Ketua Police Daerah, Kuantan [1977] 2 MLJ 24 where at p. 26 Suffian LP said:

... 'though our s. 76' (of the Evidence Ordinance) 'is silent as to the right of the applicant to inspect the first information report in question, it is clear that under the common law he has that right, as he is a person interested in it and inspection is necessary for the protection of his interest'.

The learned Lord President came to this conclusion after discussing an English authority and some lndian authorities. In the English authority Mutter v. Eastern and Midlands Railway Co. LR 38 Ch. D 92 Lindley LJ at p. 106 said:

When the right to inspect and take a copy is expressly conferred by statute, the limit of the right depends on the true construction of the statute. When the right to inspect and take a copy is not expressly conferred, the extent to such right depends on the interest which the applicant has in what he wants to copy and on what is reasonably necessary for the protection of such interest. The common law right to inspect and take copies of public documents is limited by this principle ...

The question to consider is whether a police statement is a public document which an accused person has a right to inspect at common law or by statute. The relevant provisions mainly referred to are those in the Evidence Act. Section 74 of the Evidence Act (Revised Act 56) is related to s. 76. These two sections read as follows:

74 The following documents are public documents:

(a) documents forming the acts or records of the acts of

(i) the sovereign authority;

(ii) official bodies and tribunals; and (iii) public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether Federal or State or of any other part of the Commonwealth or of a foreign country; and

(b) public records kept in Malaysia of private documents.

76 Every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate, written at the foot of the copy, that it is a true copy of the document or part thereof, as the case may be, and the certificate shall be dated and subscribed by the officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed whenever the officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal, and th