David Wong Dak Wah J:

Brief background

[1] The learned Magistrate was directed by the public prosecutor on 6 July 2005 under s. 339 of the CPC, to hold an inquiry into the cause of, and the circumstances connected with, the death of Rumie Azzan B Mahlie (deceased). Learned Magistrate held an inquiry from 24 October 2005 and his terms of reference were to find out:

(1) When did the deceased die?

(2) Where did the deceased die?

(3) How did the deceased die?

(4) In what manner the deceased died?

(5) Whether any person is criminally concerned with the death?

[2] The learned Magistrate delivered his verdict on 6 October 2006 (verdict) which concluded as follows:

1

I am therefore of the opinion that the deceased's death occurred between 10.50 - 10.59 am on the 17/9/2004. It occurred on the ground floor of the STA building. The deceased died due to multiple injuries within his body which affect his main internal organs secondary from fall from height. With regard to the manner in which the deceased came to his death, the court cannot determine based on the depositions before it whether his death resulted in any way from, or was accelerated by any unlawful act or omission on the part of any person.

However, this court will leave it to the police to conduct further investigation, if any.

The learned Magistrate delivered what is called an "open verdict". The family of the deceased was not happy with the verdict and has made an application for revision through their solicitor, Mr. Dominique Ng (Mr. Ng), under s. 341A read with the provisions of Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') for the High court to examine the record of the inquiry into the death of the deceased for the purpose of satisfying the High court as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the finding of learned Magistrate recorded in his verdict. In his submission, Mr. Ng wanted the court to revise the verdict to say as follows:

1. That Rumie never fell to his death from the Window of Operations Room located at the 9th level of the STA building;

2. That Rumie did not die by committing suicide.

[3] Mr. Ng also urges the court to request for the prosecution to conduct further investigations into Rumie's death and to reopen the case with another more competent investigation officer.

Jurisdiction Of The court

[4] At the commencement of this hearing, I asked learned Senior Federal counsel and Mr. Ng whether this court has the jurisdiction to hear this revision bearing in mind that this application is by the family of the deceased and not by the learned Senior Federal counsel. This issue had been dealt with in the cases of Re Derek Selby, Deceased, [1971] 2 MLJ 277 and Pendakwa Raya v. Shanmugam & 5 Others, [2002] 6 MLJ 562 which held that High Courts do have the jurisdiction to revise any finding of a Magistrate sitting in an inquest proceeding.

[5] I wanted to revisit this principle of law as it may be argued that application for revision can only be done at the request of the prosecution as after all any inquest into a death can only be done through the sanction of the public prosecutor. This is clear from s. 339 Criminal Procedure Code which reads as follows:

339. Power of Public Prosecutor to require inquiry to be held.

(1) The Public Prosecutor may at any time direct a Magistrate to hold an inquiry under this Chapter into the cause of, and the circumstances connected with, any death such as is referred to in sections 329 and 334, and the Magistrate to whom such direction is given shall then proceed to hold an inquiry and shall record his finding as to the cause of death and also as to any of the circumstances connected with it with regard to which the Public Prosecutor may have directed him to make inquiry.

(2) When the proceedings at any inquiry under this Chapter have been closed and it appears to the Public Prosecutor that further investigation is necessary, the Public Prosecutor may direct the Magistrate to reopen the inquiry and to make further investigation,