SYED OTHMAN
HUSDI – Appellant
Versus
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Respondent
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 The application for the cautioned statement has been withdrawn as on the day of hearing the arguments, I indicated that the Lord President was dealing with a similar application in another criminal case and would be giving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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.