KC Vohrah J:

The Public Prosecutor has made three applications for orders under s. 417(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that the trial of 3 cases be transferred from the Sessions Court, Kuala Lumpur, to the High Court under s. 417(cc) of the Code.

That an application under s. 417 is open and available to the Public Prosecutor under s. 417 is of course clear (per E. Abdoolcader SCJ in PP v. Dato Yap Peng [1987] CLJ (Rep) 284 at p. 368).

In respect of the three respondents in Criminal Application No. 14 of 1987 they are charged in the Sessions Court as follows:

That you jointly between 5 June 1986 and 16 June 1986 at the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, being agent of the Young Malaysians' Economic Development Co-operative Society Limited, to wit, directors, and in such capacities entrusted with dominion over certain property, to wit, RM1,400,000 committed breach of trust in respect of the said property and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 409 of the Penal Code.

The charge against the respondents in the Sessions Court in Criminal Application No. 14A of 1987 is as follows:

That you between 7 May 1986 and 9 May 1986 at the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, being agents of the Young Malaysians' Economic Development Cooperative society Limited, to wit, directors, and in such capacities entrusted with dominion over certain property, to wit, RM1,900,000 committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property and that you have thereby committed and offence punishable under s. 409 of the Penal Code.

And in respect of this charge the respondent in Criminal Application No. 15 is charged with abetment thus:

That you between 7 May 1986 and 9 May 1986 at the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, abetted the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust of certain property, to wit, RM1,900,000 belonging to the Young Malaysians' Economic Development Co-operative Society Limited, by Dato' Kee Yong Wee, Wong Choon Wing and Yeoh Yuen Chong which offence was committed in consequence of your abetment and that you have threreby committed and offence punishable under ss. 109 and 409 of the Penal Code.

The three applications of the Public Prosecutor for the removal of the cases from the Sessions Court to the High Court are predicated on grounds under para. (b) and (e) of s. 417(1) of the Code and they read as follows:

417. (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court:

(a) ...

(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or

(c) ...

(d) ...

(e) that such an order is expedient for the ends of justice ...

it may order

(aa) ...

(bb) ...

(cc) that any particular case be transferred to and tried before the High Court; or ...

...

(ee) ...

The main ground relied upon by the Deputy Public Prosecutor, Mr. Gooi, for the transfer is that specified in para. (e) of s. 417(1) - that such "an order is expedient for the ends of justice" - and it hinges on an argument related to s. 6 of the Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 read in conjunction with s. 36(2) of the Banking Act 1973. He also argued that the joint trial of all cases would take a considerable length of time and that it is unlikely that the parties will get a continuous hearing at one stretch in the Sessions Court.

The other ground, which Mr. Gooi termed as a complementary ground, is that it is likely that there would arise some questions of law of unusual complexity during the course of the trial but he conceded he was not pursuing this ground vigorously.

I shall deal with this ground first. There are two charges for offences of criminal breach of trust under s. 409 of the Penal Code and charge for abetment of an offence of criminal breach of trust.

Our Penal Code is modelled on the Indian Penal Code. There is no dearth of cases on abetment or on criminal breach of trust either in its simple form under s. 405 or its aggravated forms under the other sections including s. 409; the considerable body of local, Singapor