Hashim Yeop A Sani J:

At the outset I would like to make a few general observations with regard to this application. First, the application is made under s. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It should be borne in mind that broadly speaking, the primary object of that section is to ensure a fair and impartial trial. I have examined the affidavit of the applicant and have found nowhere in the affidavit to show that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the Court before which the applicant is charged. Secondly, s. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be construed as an exception to the ordinary rule on jurisdiction and venue of hearing. The power of transfer under this section should in my view be exercised only if it appears to the Court that not to do so may result in an unfair or unimpartial trial or otherwise appears to the Court expedient in the interest of justice. Thirdly, an offence of sedition under s. 4 of the Sedition Act, 1948 is an ordinary criminal offence which should normally be tried in the ordinary Court of appropriate jurisdiction. The fact that a politician is involved by itself alone should not alter the position. The assurance given by the Hon'ble Deputy Prime Minister reproduced in the exhibit of the affidavit of the applicant should only be considered in the light of s. 5 of the Sedition Act, 1948 in that the Public Prosecutor has power to designate any Court within Malaysia to be the Court of trial in the first instance. This section should however be construed without prejudice to the power of this Court to make an order of transfer under s. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code if it is considered just to do so.

More specifically, the decision on this application may be made after considering para. (b) of s. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code that is, if it appears to the Court that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise the Court may order that the case be transferred to and tried before itself. The use of the word "unusual" in that paragraph would seem to me to indicate that the difficulty in relation to the law involved must be such that either the question of law is one which is unique or out of the usual or ordinary or one which has not been dealt with by any Court before. The fact that a constitutional point of great importance is expected to be raised during the trial is not sufficient ground to transfer under this section. The exercise of the power based upon such a ground would in my opinion result in absurdity because it will at least theoretically be possible to raise some constitutional question in a good number of criminal cases where the liberty or rights of the subject are involved. It may be argued, although I have my doubts, that para. (b) of s. 417 may apply to a first prosecution under the new amendment to s. 3 of the Sedition Act, 1948; but you cannot say that of this case either. As such I have gone through the affidavits of the applicant and the respondent and found nothing to satisfy s. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an order of transfer to be justified.

It is my view therefore that the application as it stands has no merit and should be dismissed.

Application dismissed.