Augustine Paul FCJ:

[1] This appeal was heard together with Federal Court Criminal Appeals No 05-18-2006 (J) and 05-21-2006 (J) as they involved a common question of law. The issue for determination is the effect of an act done by a person when he is not the holder of the office who is required by law to do the act in question.

[2] The detainee was detained for a period of two years with effect from 18 December 2004 pursuant to s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act"). He filed a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court seeking his release. At the hearing of the writ learned counsel based his argument on only one point in reliance on r 3 of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1987 which reads as follows:

3 (1) When any person is served with a detention order, the police officer serving the detention order shall at the same time:

(a) inform that person of his right to make representations against the detention order; and

(b) provide him with three copies of Form I prescribed in the Schedule and obtain from him an acknowledgement of the receipt thereof.

(2) A detained person who desires to make any representation shall complete Form I and shall forward two copies of the completed Form I duly signed by him to the Secretary through the Officer in Charge of the Police District where the detention order was served or the Officer in Charge of the place of detention.

(3) When a detained person is brought to a place of detention, the Officer in Charge shall as soon as practicable remind the person of his right to make representations.

(4) The Officer in Charge of the Police District where the detention order was served or the Officer in Charge, as the case may be, who receives any written representation in Form I shall forthwith forward such representation to the Secretary.

(5) Where a detained person refuses to accept service of any document to be served on him under the Act or these rules, the Officer in Charge of the Police District where the detention order is served shall forthwith inform the Secretary of such refusal and it shall be presumed that the detained person is not making any representation against his order of detention.

(6) A detained person who refuses to accept service of any document at the time when he was served with the detention order may request the Officer in Charge to serve Form I on him, and the Officer in Charge shall on such request being made, serve three copies of Form I on the detained person and inform the Secretary of such service.

[3] In this case the officer who carried out the duties under r 3(2), (3) and (4) was one Sazali bin Ismail. He was a Superintendent at Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Muar, Johor Learned counsel contended in the High Court that there was no evidence on record to show that Sazali bin Ismail was the Officer in Charge as specified in the said rules. In his reply the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor said that it can be assumed that he was the officer in charge. In support of his contention he referred to Wong Kiew Meow v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia, [1994] 1 MLJ 714. In upholding the objection raised the learned Judge of the High Court said in his grounds of judgment:

It might not be that obvious, but r 3 requires specific officers to carry out specific tasks. The officer to inform the person of his right to make representations against the detention order and to provide that person with 3 copies of Form I (see Puvaneswaran v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Anor, [1991] 3 MLJ 28) and obtain an acknowledgement of the receipt thereof, is the police officer serving the detention order (sub-rule 3(1)). When a detained person is brought to a place of detention, the officer to remind that person of his right to make representations is the Officer in Charge of the place of detention. A detained person who desires to make any representation shall complete Form I and shall forward two cop