MAGISTRATE COURT KUCHING
PP – Appellant
Versus
MOSTAPA HIPNI – Respondent
1. Introduction
[1] The accused was charged with an offence under s 86(1) of the Police Act 1967 (Act 344). The charge worded in Bahasa Malaysia is as follows:
Bahawa kamu diantara 17 Oktober 2005 jam 7.00 pagi sehingga 8 November 2005 jam 7.00 pagi di bilik Pengawal Ibu pejabat Polis Daerah Kuching, di dalam daerah kuching, di dalam negeri Sarawak, semasa bertugas sebagai anggota Cawangan Pengawal dan Pengiring telah didapati tanpa sebab-sebab yang munasabah tidak hadir bertugas selama 21 hari berturut-turut. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 86(1) Akta Polis 1967.
[2] The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the charge.
2. The Law
[3] Section 86 (1) of the Police Act 1967 (Act 344) reads:
86. Desertion.
(1) Any police officer who, without reasonable cause, the onus of proof whereof shall rest with him, absents himself from duty for a continuous period of twenty-one days or in circumstances which show that he has the intention of not returning to his duty shall be deemed to have deserted, and shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months.
[4] In order to establi
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.