JUDGMENT

This is an application bya detainee, Mohd Fadzli, for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by this Court for his release from a detention center for drug addicts known as “Pusat Serenti Karangan”.

He alleges that hisdetention is unlawful by reason of the fact that the Magistrate at Butterworth, in issuing the detention order, had acted on an invalid medical certificate allegedly issued by a Government Medical Officer.

His counsel, in his written submission,contends that as the medical certificate was invalid, it follows that the detention order, was also invalid.

His counsel argues that the medical certificate was materially defective because the prescribed format requires the nameof the medical officer who purportedly issued the certificate to be written below the alleged signature of the said officer, but this was not done.

That the name of the medical officer was not written below the signature is not disputed bythe parties. What is in issue is the effect of such an omission. The learned Federal Counsel, Puan Zaliha, for the respondents, submits that such an omission does not render the order invalid because the name of the medical officer, although not stated belowthe signature, is, nevertheless, mentioned in the body of the certificate. The certificate states, “Saya Dr. Lim Hung Hai seorang pegawai perubatan Kerajaan, setelah menjalankan ujian-ujian yang perlu ke atas:” In otherwords, the omission is a mere technical or formal defect.

Section 6Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983

6 Magistrate's order which may be made on a drug dependant.

(1) Where a person who has undergone the tests referred to in section 3 or 4, and, in consequence of such tests, is certified by a government medical officer or a registered medical practitioner to be a drug dependant, the officer shall produce him,or cause him to appear, before a Magistrate and the Magistrate shall upon the recommendation of a Rehabilitation Officer and after giving such person an opportunity to make representations -

(a) is satisfied that such person requires to undergo treatment and rehabilitation at a Rehabilitation Centre, order such person to reside at such Centre for a period of two years to undergo treatment and rehabilitation and thereafterto undergo after-care in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating thereto; or

(b) ...[not relevant]......

(5) A certificate under subsection (1) purporting to be signed by a government medical officer or a registered medical practitioner shall be receivable by a Magistrate without proof of the signature thereon, and the Magistrate shallaccept it as proof of its contents, unless the contrary is proved.

The pertinent question is: can exhibit R3 of encl. 3 be said to be a certificate envisaged by subsections(1) and (5) of section 6 of the Act?

Section 28 of the Act empowers the Minister of Home Affairs to prescribe the form to be used. The section states:

28 Rules.

(1) The Minister may make rules for the further, better and more convenient carryingout of the provisions or purposes of this Act and in particular, but without derogating from the generality of the foregoing, with respect to any or all of the following matters:

(a) ...

(b) to provide forms for use in connection with any matter under this Act;

...

Now, pursuant to the above provisions, the Minister in charge of internal security made the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Forms) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).Rule 2 of the Rules stipulates:

2 Forms.

The forms to be usedfor the purpose of the Act shall be those appearing in the Schedule.

The Schedule to the Rules provides:

SCHEDULE

FORM 1

DRUG DEPENDANTS (TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION) ACT 1983

[Section 4]

CERTIFICATE AS TO DRUG DEPENDANCY

To:

The Magistrate/President *

---------------------------------}..................................................................

Magistrate's/SessionsCourt *

I, ...................................................................