K C Vohrah J:

[1] On 14 November 1996 acting in revision I set aside the remand order made by a Magistrate under s 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') where she allowed the detention of ten persons by the police for another three days. I gave some short reasons for setting aside the remand order and I now give my written grounds for making such an order.

[2] The hearing of the case was as a result of an urgent application made on the afternoon of 13 November 1996 at 3.15pm for the order of the Magistrate made that afternoon to be revised by the High Court under s 323 of the CPC. The complaint was that the omnibus remand order made on the ten persons by the Magistrate was not in compliance with s 117 of the CPC.

[3] I perused the record of proceedings and the documents which the Magistrate purported to rely on when she made the order of detention on ten persons that afternoon.

[4] It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate had not appreciated the strict nature of the provisions of s 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the case law on the matter.

[5] The arguments on law in open Court on 14 November 1996 related purely to the record of proceedings and the documents attached to the record.

Reasons Of Magistrate

[6] Under s 117(3) of the CPC the Magistrate is under a mandatory duty to give her reasons for making the remand order. At the end of her notes of proceedings, this is what she stated:

I am satisfied with the reasons as appear in the application and also in the investigation diary that was given. As a result I allow all suspects (ten persons) to be detained for three days under s 117 Criminal Procedure Code starting from today.

Application Before The Magistrate

[7] The application referred to by the Magistrate is a typewritten application addressed to the Magistrate at Kuala Lumpur requesting for an extension of the detention period under s 117 CPC in respect of ten named persons. Against these names is a typewritten note "Section 27(1)(c) Akta Polis 1967." All Counsel agree that the section should read as s 27A(1)(c) of the Police Act 1967.

[8] What were the reasons that the Magistrate was satisfied with? The "reasons" in the application are set out immediately after the list of ten names under the heading "Alasan-alasan" ("Reasons"). There are three paragraphs. The certified translation of these three paragraphs reads as follows:

2

On 9 November 1996 a demonstration took place at Asia Hotel, Jalan Haji Hussin, Kuala LumpuR 60 people involved were arrested by the police. The suspects were remanded under s 117 CPC from 10 November 1996 till 13 November 1996.

During the period the police were unable to complete their investigation due to several reasons such as:

1. Many people were arrested. Police also arrested seven others making a total of 67. A large number of arrests and the short period of detention was insufficient for the police to continue to investigate.

2. Two groups were involved in the incident, ie the promoter of the conference, the NGO, and those who opposed it (Barisan Bertindak Rakyat Malaysia).

A thorough investigation to co-ordinate and to identify them is very important and needs to be synchronised.

3. Investigation until now has not been able to realise the true motive and it is felt that the suspects above are the most qualified people to help the police in solving this problem.

4. The police are having difficulties as the suspects had refused as stated above to give full co-operation in the investigation. The police had made every effort to complete this investigation whereas until today the number of 57 witnesses had been released on police bail after they had given their co-operation in this investigation.

5. The police are of the opinion that the co-operation of the above suspects is very badly needed in order to identify the persons responsible as the puppet-master and the persons behind those responsible for the outbreak of this demonstration.

Based on the reasons above, I apply that the re