Augustine Paul J:

By this notice of motion dated 19 August 1999 Gopinathan a/l Subramaniam ("the applicant") prayed for an order that a writ of habeas corpus be issued to the respondents to produce him before this court to be released. The applicant had been ordered to be detained for a period of two years on 19 March 1999 by the learned magistrate, Kuala Kubu Bharu at the Pusat Serenti Raub, Pahang in accordance with s. 6(1)(a) of the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 ("the Act"). Section 6 of the Act shall hereafter be referred to as "the section". The applicant had been certified to be a drug dependant pursuant to a certificate ("the certificate") issued by a government medical officer in the prescribed form, the material parts of which read as follows:

Saya, DR. SYED MOHD REDHA BIN SYED NASIR seorang *pegawai perubatan kerajaan/pengamal perubatan berdaftar, setelah menjalankan ujianujian yang perlu ke atas GOPINATHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM Kad Pengenalan No 790327-14-5551 berumur 20 tahun yang beralamat di NO. 20 KG. SRI TERATAI, RAWANG. memperakui bahawa dia *ialah /xxxx seorang penagih dadah mengikut pengertian Akta. **Dadah/dadah-dadah berbahaya yang digunakan yang menyebabkan dia menjadi seorang penagih dadah ialah CANNABIS

In making the order the learned magistrate had acted in accordance with the recommendation ("the recommendation") in para. 4 of the report ("the report") of the rehabilitation officer which reads as follows:

4. SYOR PEGAWAI PEMULIHAN

Adalah disyorkan supaya penama dimasukkan ke dalam pusat pemulihan selama dua thn dan kemudian menjalani perintah pengawasan polis selama dua tahun mengikut Seksyen 6(1)(a) Akta Penagih Dadah1983 (Pindaan) 1998.

In his argument before me learned counsel for the applicant contended, inter alia, that the learned magistrate erred in accepting the recommendation as it did not take relevant matters into consideration. Learned counsel said that the recommendation that the applicant be detained for a period of two years pursuant to sub-s. 6(1)(a) of the section is not supported by the following extracts from the report:

2.4 Rekod Penggunaan Dadah

2.4.1 Jenis Dadah : Ganja

2.4.2 Lama Menggunakan Dadah : 1 thn

Tarikh Mula: 1998

2.4.3 Cara Pengambilan Dadah : Balut

2.4.4 Kekerapan Menggunakan Dadah :

Sekali sekala

2.4.5 Perbelanjaan Menggunakan Dadah :

3. Rumusan Di Atas Keseluruhan Latar

Belakang Penagih : (Untuk menentukan cara pemulihan yang sesuai)

Penama berumur 20 thn, masih bujang dan kini tinggal bersama ibunya.

Penama bekerja sebagai pemandu lori dengan pendapatan RM25/hari.

Penama mengaku menghisap dadah jenis ganja dengan cara balut. Penama telah terlibat dengan dadah sejak tahun 1997.

Kekerapan menghisap adalah sekali sekala.

Penama kini dalam perintah pengawasan dari tempoh 3/6/1997 hingga 3/6/1999 oleh Mahkamah Majistret Ampang.

Penama gagal hadir melapur diri lansung sepanjang tempoh tersebut.

Learned counsel concluded by saying that these findings of the rehabilitation officer show that the applicant is not a drug dependant as defined by s. 2 of the Act as follows:

'drug dependant' means a person who through the use of any dangerous drug undergoes a psychic and sometimes physical state which is characterised by behavioural and other responses including the compulsion to take the drug on a continuous or periodic basis in order to experience its psychic effect and to avoid the discomfort of its absence;

In his reply the learned senior federal counsel said that the applicant has been certified to be a drug dependant by a government medical officer after the necessary tests were carried out. He added that the report is independent of the certification of the government medical officer and should not be considered to determine whether the applicant is a drug dependant. The object of the report, he said, is only for the purpose of making a recommendation to the magistrate which he followed. Accordingly, the learned magistr