Clement Skinner JC:

Leow Nyok Chin (hereafter the appellant) who is charged with murder under s. 302 Penal Code (PC) was produced before the magistrate, Batu Gajah, on 4 November 1998 when she applied for bail but was refused it. Being dissatisfied with such decision she has brought this appeal.

The record of appeal reveals the facts leading up to her bail application to be as follows:

(i) On 23 July 1998, the appellant, a 58 year old woman surrendered herself to the police whereafter she was remanded in custody for the next 14 days till 5 August 1998.

(ii) On 5 August 1998, a charge under s. 302 PC was registered at the magistrate's court whereafter the charge was read to the appellant but no plea taken. At that date, the Public Prosecutor had not given his consent to the institution of proceedings against the appellant.

(iii) On the same day, that is 5 August 1998, the magistrate acting under the provisions of s. 342(3) Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) on the request of the prosecution, sent the appellant to Hospital Bahagia, Ulu Kinta, for medical observation.

(iv) On 3 September 1998, the magistrate, at the request of Hospital Bahagia ordered the appellant to continue to remain at the hospital for observation till 5 October 1998. (v) On 5 October 1998, the magistrate, at the request of Hospital Bahagia, ordered the appellant to continue to remain at the hospital for a further period of observation till 4 November 1998.

(vi) On 30 October 1998, Hospital Bahagia sent its medical report on the appellant to the magistrate's court.

(vii) On 4 November 1998, the appellant was brought before the magistrate. It was then that her application for bail was made. When her application was made, the Public Prosecutor had still not consented to the institution of proceedings against the appellant.

The learned magistrate refused bail for the following reasons:

(a) before considering the merits of the application, the court needed to interpret the statutory provision on the powers of the court to hear the application;

(b) no valid reasons had been given to show that the court could hear the application for bail when a magistrate's court has no jurisdiction to try a murder case. If at all there is to be any bail granted until trial, the application should be heard by the court with jurisdiction to try the case, that is, the High Court;

(c) the case was in its early stages and still had not been referred to the Public Prosecutor to determine the proper charge on the facts.

It is against the above orders that this appeal is brought. The learned magistrate has since then, on 16 November 1998, given his full reasons (hereafter grounds of decision) for making the above orders.

In arguing this appeal, Mr. Hira Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has urged this court to ignore the grounds of decision delivered on 16 November 1998 as counsel considers it a second judgment, written or delivered quite contrary to law. Counsel cites the case of Lorraine Phylis Cohen v. PP [1989] 2 CLJ 131 where the then Supreme Court clearly laid down that a second written judgment or grounds of decision cannot be delivered to supplement a first decision.

I must at once say that I do not regard the grounds of decision delivered on 16 November 1998 by the learned magistrate to be a second decision given to supplement the order made on 4 November 1998. It is apparent to me that as his decision of 4 November 1998 was being appealed against, the learned magistrate was merely complying with the requirement that he should state fully his reasons for refusing bail.

Reverting to the appeal brought, the petition of appeal makes reference to certain acts and orders of the learned magistrate prior to 4 November 1998. These are to be found in ground two of the petition of appeal. In particular, reference has been made to the order made on 5 August 1998 remanding the appellant in custody after the initial remand period of 14 days under s. 117 CPC had expi