The principle of functus officio applies, limiting a court's ability to revisit its own final decisions on merits, emphasizing the need for higher tribunal intervention.

[1] This appeal emanates from the decision of the High Court at Johor Bahru dated 19 February 2017, dismissing the Public Prosecutor's ("PP") criminal application filed vide a notice of motion dated 15 December 2016. In the said notice of motion, the PP applied to the High Court for the following reliefs-

(i) To relist the Appeals No 41LB-03-02/2015 and No 41(ORS)-01-02/2015 which were struck off earlier by His Lordship Justice Dato' Mohd Sofian Tan Sri Abd Razak on 8 September 2016;

(ii) To grant an extension of time to the PP to file an appeal against the decision dated 8 September 2016 to the Court of Appeal; and

(iii) To stay the execution of the Magistrate's decision dated 28 January 2016 ordering the return of the seized good to the respondent (5th respondent).

[2] Being disenchanted by the said order, the PP has now appealed to this Court. Hence, this appeal before us.

Brief Background

[3] In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this instant appeal, it is necessary to set out the following salient facts-

3.1 The 1st and 5th respondents were charged separately before the Magistrate's Court at Johor Bahru for an offence under s 135(i)(g) of the Customs Act 1967 and a second alternative charge under s 138 of same Act, both punishable under s 135(1)(iii) (aa) of the same Act. The 1st and 5th respondents claimed trial to the charges.

3.2 Upon the application of the PP, a joint trial was held where the 1st respondent at all material times represented the 5th respondent's company.

3.3 On 3 September 2013, the respondents were acquitted and discharged by the Magistrate's Court at the close of the prosecution's case without their defence being called on the ground that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case against them.

3.4 The PP appealed to the High Court. The High Court thereafter ordered the respondents to enter their defence and remitted the case back to the Magistrate's Court for continued hearing. On 28 January 2015, at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate held that the respondents had succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. In the result, he acquitted and discharged the respondents.

3.5 The PP, being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate in acquitting and discharging the respondents had once again appealed to the High Court ie Appeals No 41LB-03-02/2015 and No 41(ORS)-01-02/2015. The appeals were initially set for hearing on 18 April 2016 but were further postponed to 31 May 2016, 23 June 2016 and 8 September 2016 as the respondents were absent. The prosecution had made several unsuccessful attempts to trace the respondents. Due to their absence, the learned High Court Judge ordered both the appeals to be struck off.

3.6 On 15 December 2016, the PP filed a notice of motion for reinstatement of the appeals accompanied with an affidavit in support. The PP. had also sought for an extension of time to file an appeal against the High Court decision dated 8 September 2016 to the Court of Appeal and for a stay of execution of the decision of the learned Magistrate dated 28 January 2015 in ordering the seized exhibits to be returned to the 1st and 5th respondents. It is also noteworthy to mention that the said notice of motion had now included the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents although they were not charged before the Magistrate's Cou