The institution of prosecution is solely vested in the Attorney General, and any provision allowing local authorities to initiate prosecution is unconstitutional.

Akhtar Tahir JC:

[1] This case was brought to the High Court by way of revision seeking to reverse the learned magistrate's ruling on a preliminary objection raised by the learned defence counsel for the accused.

[2] From the records of the magistrate's court Temerloh the accused was first charged in the court on 31 January 2008 and the charges against the accused were as follows:

Pertuduhan:

(Saman No: 86-416 Tahun 2006)

Bahawa kamu pada 18/4/2006 jam 10.00 pagi di No. 10A, Jalan Besar, Lanchang dalam Negeri Pahang telah didapati kamu telah menjalankan perniagaan kedai runcit tanpa lesen.

Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 2, Akta Kerajaan Tempatan, 1976 , Undang-Undang Kecil Pelesenan Tred, Perniagaan dan Perindustrian (Majlis Daerah Temerloh) 1984 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 26 Akta yang sama.

(Saman No: 86-417 Tahun 2006)

Bahawa kamu pada 06/6/2006 jam 10.26 pagi di No. 10A, Jalan Besar, Lanchang dalam Negeri Pahang telah di dapati kamu telah menjalankan perniagaan mini market tanpa lesen.

Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 2, Akta Kerajaan Tempatan, 1976 , Undang-Undang Kecil Pelesenan Tred, Perniagaan dan Perindustrian (Majlis Daerah Temerloh) 1984 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 26 Akta yang sama.

(Saman No: 86-418 Tahun 2006)

Bahawa kamu pada 10/3/2006 jam 5.30 petang di No. 10A, Jalan Besar, Lanchang dalam Negeri Pahang telah di dapati kamu telah menjalankan perniagaan runcit tanpa lesen.

Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 2, Akta Kerajaan Tempatan, 1976 , Undang-Undang Kecil Pelesenan Tred, Perniagaan dan Perindustrian (Majlis Daerah Temerloh) 1984 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 26 Akta yang sama.

(Saman No: 86-419 Tahun 2006)

Bahawa kamu pada 10/3/2006 jam 5.10 petang di No. 10A, Jalan Besar, Lanchang dalam Negeri Pahang telah di dapati kamu telah menjalankan perniagaan barangan runcit tanpa lesen.

Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 2, Akta Kerajaan Tempatan, 1976 , Undang-Undang Kecil Pelesenan Tred, Perniagaan dan Perindustrian (Majlis Daerah Temerloh) 1984 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 26 Akta yang sama.

[3] It is also clear from the records that throughout the proceedings in the lower court the prosecution was conducted by the prosecuting officer from the Majlis Perbandaran Temerloh purportedly on behalf of the public prosecutor although no such authorization in writing from the public prosecutor was shown or tendered in court. This clearly contravenes s. 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code .

[4] However this is not the crux of the objection of the learned defence counsel. Issues on conduct of prosecution in court have been settled by the relevant amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code .

[5] The crux of the objection in this case is the institution of prosecution by the Majlis Perbandaran Temerloh and thereby disregarding the powers of the Attorney General to institute prosecution conferred by the Federal Constitution.

[6] The difference between Institution of prosecution and conduct of prosecution has been highlighted in at least two cases. The first case being PP v. Datuk Harun Hj Idris & Ors where Abdoolcader J (as His Lordship then was) stated as follows:

Institute in Article 145(3) cannot cover the subject-matter of section 418A of the Code, as the Solicitor-General contends. It must necessarily refer to the commencement of criminal proceedings and prosecutions and not to such as have already been instituted and are pending or to criminal procedure as such. It may well be, as the Solicitor-General submits, that