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

2009 MarsdenLR 1617

HIGH COURT MALAYA TEMERLOH
SUBRAMANIAM GOPAL – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent


Table of Content
1. outline of charges against the accused. (Para 1 , 2)
2. authorized institution of prosecution needed. (Para 3 , 19 , 20)
3. arguments against local authority’s prosecution power. (Para 4 , 5 , 8)
4. institution of prosecution is prerogative of the attorney general. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 12)
5. declaration of nullity for provisions violating art. 145(3). (Para 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18)
Akhtar Tahir JC:

[1] This case was brought to the High Court by way of revision seeking to reverse the learned magistrate's ruling on a preliminary objection raised by the learned defence counsel for the accused.

[2] From the records of the magistrate's Court Temerloh the accused was first charged in the Court on 31 January 2008 and the charges against the accused were as follows:

Pertuduhan:

(Saman No: 86-416 Tahun 2006)

Bahawa kamu pada 18/4/2006 jam 10.00 pagi di No. 10A, Jalan Besar, Lanchang dalam Negeri Pahang telah didapati kamu telah menjalankan perniagaan kedai runcit tanpa lesen.

Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 2, Akta Kerajaan Tempatan, 1976 , Undang-Undang Kecil Pelesenan Tred, Perniagaan dan Perindustrian (Majlis Daerah Temerloh) 1984 dan bo

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