SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 MarsdenLR 1355

MAGISTRATE COURT KUCHING
PP – Appellant
Versus
MOSTAPA HIPNI – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Stella Augustine Druce ,Respondent Advocate: Abdul Rahman Mohamad Hazmi

Maris Agan M:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top