JUDGMENT

Abdul Kadir Musa J:

The applicant, Uthayakumar a/l Ponnusamy, represented by Encik M. Manoharan, Encik Chan Weng Keng, Encik P.W. Moorthy, Encik V.K. Sharma and Encik Chan Tse Yuen filed this application (encl. (3) on 30 September 2004 supported by his affidavit (encl. (2)) for a number of reliefs in respect of the issuance of a number of warrant of arrests (prayers (1)-(5) of encl. (3)) and his arrest and detention on 9 September 2004 (para (6), ibid. ) to be invalid and unlawful respectively. He also sought declaration to prevent the investigating machinery, through the police and related government agencies, to investigate into Pantai Police Reports 3231/04 and 003645/04 and Brickfields Police Report 4638/04 (para (10), (11) and (15), ibid. ). The other prayers, were in my opinion, were not within the ambit of the court's consideration.

The respondents were represented by Encik Mohamed Hanafiah and Encik Suhaimi bin Ibrahim, whilst Encik Amer Hamzah was holding a watching brief for Bar Council, Malaysia.

At the very onset of the case (11 October 2004), upon one of Encik Hanafiah's preliminary objections, and my pointing out to Encik Manoharan as to his client's relief for an injunction, he agreed with the court that there can be no order of injunction against the Government or its investigative machineries, and hence such prayer as in para (10) (11) and (15) of encl. (3) should therefore be and were accordingly struck off. Having the above decided, and upon the request of both parties for more time to do the needful, I could only fix the hearing proper to be on 28 March 2005 (the first available date to court and suitable to all the parties).

On 28 March 2005, it was brought to my attention by Encik Hanafiah that there was a Federal court case which will determine whether or not such an application as the applicant's should be filed in Criminal or Civil Registry of the High court. As such, both parties agreed to postpone the hearing, and it was fixed on 11 April 2005. It was again postponed to 30 June 2005 upon the applicant's application.

On 30 June 2005, during the submission by Encik Manoharan, it was pointed out of the possible error in para (18) of encl. (2). As such, he requested the court to grant the applicant (and not objected by the Encik Hanafiah) a short postponement to enable him to file in corrective affidavit. I allowed his request and adjourned the continued submission to 8 August 2005.

On 8 August 2005, Encik Manoharan continued his submission by referring again to para 18 of encl. (2) and para (3) of the corrective affidavit (encl. 48) and contended that, the notice under s. 111 Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC") was not served personally to the applicant. The applicant came to know about it through "Tetuan M. Manoharan & Co". The reason advanced by the applicant was that there was no personal signature of his on the said notice dated 17 June 2004 (exh. "UK9", encl. (2)).

The said "UK9", was addressed to:

Tuan Uthayakumar a/l Ponnusamy

8-10-5 Menara Mutiara Bangsar Off

Jalan Riong, Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur.

The said UK9, was styled as:

Arahan Menghadiri Penyiasatan ...

(emphasis added).

It was issued by "DSP Gan Tack Guan, Ketua Bahagian D9A, Kuala Lumpur". At the bottom right of the said UK9, it was stamped as being received by M. Manoharan & Co, on 17 June 2004 at 11.40am. It required the applicant to personally be present "... di Pejabat Bahagian Jenayah Utama (D9), Tingkat 7, Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontingen Kuala Lumpur."

The words "Arahan Menghadiri" in the said UK9 have the effect of ordering the applicant to personally be present for the purpose(s) of investigation in respect of "Brickfields Report: 4638/2004" as intended by para (1) of the same. Such an order was certainly in line with the words "... by order in writing ..." found in s. 111 CPC .

For the purpose of this application, the relevant part of the said s. 111 CPC states as follows:

111 (i) A police Officer making an investigation under this chapter may by