Gill J:

The respondent to this appeal was tried in Magistrate's Court at Kuala Lumpur on the following charge:-

That you on 21 August 68 at about 12.10 p.m. at Methodist Girls' School canteen Jalan Abdul Samad, in the District of Kuala Lumpur, in the State of Selangor, did put one Lem Hing @ Lim Kong Kee in fear of injury, to wit by threatening to cause bodily injury to one Tan Kim Tai, the employee of the said Lem Hing @ Lim Kong Kee, in order to the committing of extortion of cash $10 and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 381 of the Penal Code."

He was acquitted and discharged at the end of the prosecution case without his defence being called. Against such acquittal and discharge, the Public Prosecutor appealed.

The evidence for the prosecution was that at about 12.10 p.m. on the day in question Lim Kong Kee (PW1) together with his son named Lim Kee Hoon and a relative of his, named Tan Kim Tai (PW2), arrived in his van No BF9819 at the canteen of the Methodist Girls' School, Jalan Abdul Samad, Kuala Lumpur in order to deliver sweets and biscuits to the canteen keeper. After they had taken the sweets into the canteen and while the goods were being checked, the accused and another male Chinese arrived there. The accused came up to the door of the canteen with a stone in his hand, while the other remained outside and sat at a table. The accused then demanded protection money from PW1 PW1 said that he had no money, and pleaded with the accused to let him go. PW1 and his son were allowed to go away, get money and return to the canteen by 1.30 p.m. leaving PW2 with the accused. The accused told PW1 that if he did not return by 1.30 p.m. with the money all of them would be in trouble.

PW1 went with his son to the High Street Police Station where he reported the matter to Police Inspector Johari bin Haji Abdul Rahman (PW4). PW4, without reducing the report into writing as there was no time, took a $10 note from PW1, put his signature on it and gave it back to PW1 with the instruction that he was to hand it over to the accused who had demanded protection money. He also instructed detective police constable Anthony Victor (PW3) and police constable Zakaria, both of whom were in civilian clothes, to accompany PW1 in his van to the school canteen. On arrival at the school canteen, PW1 got down from his van with the two policemen watching him from inside the van. The accused approached PW1 who handed the signed $10 note to him. Immediately after that, the two policemen rushed out of the van and arrested the accused. They then took the accused and the $10 note to the police station. PW1 also went to the police station and then lodged a formal report which was recorded by PW4.

The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused without calling on his defence on the ground, first, that as the report of PW1 had not been reduced into writing in the first instance the police had no power to act and that, consequently, the arrest of the accused was void in law; secondly, that the only evidence that could corroborate the evidence of PW1 was that of PW2 who, being an employee and a relative of PW1, was very much an interested party.

With respect to the learned Magistrate, he was wrong in acquitting the respondent on each of the grounds which he has mentioned in his grounds of judgment. However important a document a first information report is, it can never be treated as a piece of substantive evidence and the fact that no first information report was made is not in itself a ground for throwing out a case. The powers of the police to investigate do not depend solely on Chapter XIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. The duties of a police officer as set out in s. 20 of the Police Act, 1967 include apprehending all persons whom he is by law authorized to apprehend and these duties are amplified in s. 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Most of these duties imply a power to investigate whether there has been an in