Syed Ahmad Idid J:

Preliminary point

The respondent's Counsel raised an issue in respect of the aggrieved party i.e. the applicant. Was it the public prosecutor as stated in the "Usul"? The learned DPP conceded that the applicant should be the police with reference to s. 117 Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Accordingly the correction is made.

Through "Notis Usul"

This application is for the revision of the order made by the Registrar of the Magistrates' Courts, which order released the respondent from police custody. The Registrar had, on 12 May 1994, stated that the arrest of the respondent was made without a warrant and that the suspect (or respondent here) was not told of the reasons for her detention.

The Public Prosecutor through the Deputy Public Prosecutor Encik Zainal Adzam bin Abdul Ghani, in his 18-page submission made streneous efforts to back the actions earlier taken by the police.

At this stage, the respondent is not tried nor has she been charged for any offence in a Court of law. The two issues here are (a) whether her "arrest" (or tangkapan) and "detention" by the police (or the Commercial Crime Investigation Division) purportedly made on 11 May 1994 at about 10.20 a.m. within the Kuala Lumpur Court precincts was legal and according to the law and (b) whether the Registrar's order was proper.

Perusing the affidavits filed by Inspector Nagendra Rao a/l Babojorow, ASP Latt Mazura bte Mansur and Woman Corporal Hamidah bte Abdul Rahman for the applicant and by the respondent herself, her husband Lim Chin Teik on 23 May 1994 and a corrective affidavit on 30 May 1994, her Solicitor Lee Lim Huat and Lt. Col. Ahmad bin Daud who is presently doing practical training in a law firm, it is obvious certain divergence exists.

Finding of Facts

On 14 April 1994 the police received a complaint from Zalik Securities Sdn. Bhd. vide Jalan Bandar, Police Report No: 6191/94. An investigation was conducted and the police concluded that Lim Chin Teik (respondent's husband) had committed breach of trust of RM890,973.36 from Zalik where he worked as a Stock Broking Manager.

On 5 May 1994 respondent's husband was charged (under s. 409 Penal Code) vide Sessions Court 62-55- 94. He pleaded not guilty and was released on bail of RM500,000.

Lim Chin Teik in his affidavit (para 19) told the police "my wife kept the share scripts and money". The respondent turned up at the Police Headquarters on 29 April 1994 and gave her word that she would surrender all share certificates including 35 lots Mulpha, 20 lots

Mechmar, 48 lots MCB and 2 lots Public Bank and cash of RM70,000 but she did not do so. And she did not return to Bukit Aman thereafter.

On 11 May 1994 when the police met her at Block K13, police "arrested" ("menangkap") her. Police report No: Sentul 4311/94 was lodged by Hamidah bte Abdul Rahman.

The next day on 12 May 1994 Inspector Nagendra Rao submitted an application to continue detention of the respondent under s. 117 of the CPC. The application was made on police 51B meant as "Kertas Butir-butir Penyiasatan" but in reality this was turned into a letter addressed to the Magistrate in which the Inspector provided these two reasons:

(1) to recover certain assets and (2) to question the respondent

and added that the respondent was believed to have destroyed all the share scripts.

It is to be noted that the police at that time neither suspected nor entertained any thoughts that the respondent was involved in the commission of any offence or crime. Learned DPP only in his submission in Court broached on the possibility ("mungkin") that respondent abetted her husband under s. 109 read with s. 409 of the Penal Code (PC) or that she dishonestly received stolen property (s. 411) or assisted in concealment of stolen property (s. 414). (Was appropriate action not taken under s. 62 (but perhaps not under s. 63) CPC?)

In so far as the respondent's husband (Lim Chin Teik) is concerned, s. 409 of the Penal Code under which he i