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) |
[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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.