Sharma J (delivering oral JUDGMENT):

Mr. Mahendran saw me in chambers on 10 January 1972 and complained to me of the difficult position he found himself in as a result of the Bruas Magistrate's decision in refusing to grant him an adjournment in arrest case No. 88 of 1970 which the Magistrate had fixed for hearing on 14 January on which date Mr. Mahendran had also to appear in the High Court Kuala Lumpur on the hearing on a criminal appeal. I was told that the date of hearing of the criminal appeal at Kuala Lumpur was notified to Mr. Mahendran in a letter dated the 2 December 1971 and that the Bruas Magistrate had notified him of the date only on the 17 December 1971 i.e. the criminal appeal at Kuala Lumpur had been fixed much earlier. Mr. Mahendran had written a letter to the Bruas Magistrate on the 22 January 1971 explaining his difficulty but the Magistrate turned down the request for any further adjournment of the Bruas case.

I thought that there might be a likelihood of some injustice resulting to the accused in the Bruas case and therefore after having heard Mr. Mahendran's complaint, I directed the Registrar to send for the file in the Bruas case so that I may have an opportunity to go through it and if necessary act in revision under the power contained in s. 323 of the Procedure Code. A notice of revision was consequently issued to the parties concerned and it is that revision which comes up for hearing today.

The brief history of Bruas Magistrate's Court arrest case No. 88 of 1970 is that the accused was charged under s. 379 of the Penal Code. He first appeared in Court on 13 November 1970 and on that date he pleaded guilty to the charge. The case was, however, adjourned to 7 December 1970 for facts and sentence. On 7 December, however, he withdrew his plea of guilt and the case had to be adjourned to 8 January 1971. Two days before the date of hearing i.e. on 6 January 1971, the accused retained Messrs. Mahendran & Co. and on that very day a letter was sent to the Magistrate, Bruas, informing him that 8 January 1971 was not convenient to Mr. Mahendran who was in charge of the case. Certain dates were suggested in that letter and as a result thereof the case was adjourned to 18 January 1971. On that day the accused was absent because of some illness. The matter was then adjourned to 5 March 1971 but on that day the Counsel for the accused was ill. The case consequently had to be adjourned to 30 April 1971 when Mr. Mahendran appeared in Court but asked for an adjournment. The reasons for the adjournment given to the Magistrate were that Mr. Mahendran had to do a murder case in the High Court at lpoh on 3 May 1971. On that request the learned Magistrate again adjourned the case. I would like to pause here and say that on 30 April the prosecution was ready, the accused was present and so was his Counsel. The murder trial had to commence three days after that day and there was no reason why the hearing could not have proceeded at Bruas in those circumstances. The matter. However, was adjourned to 14 June 1971. On that day the accused was present but not his Counsel. It however, so happened that the Magistrate was on leave and the case had again to be adjourned to 20 August. 1971. The hearing commenced on 20 August, i.e. more than nine months after the arrest of the accused and after the case had been adjourned seven times. The case was partheard on 20 August 1971 and adjourned to 25 October 1971 for continued hearing. On that day the accused did not appear although his Counsel did. The Court was told that the accused was not well and the case had again to be adjourned to 8 November 1971. On that day the accused was again absent and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. Mr. Mahendran did appear in Court on 8 November 1971 and he knew that the case was fixed for hearing on 10 December 1971 but when the case did come up for hearing on 10 December 1971 Mr. Mahendran was absent although the accused was