The High Court's power to review a prima facie finding is limited and should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances where no evidence supports the charge, preserving the integrity of the trial process.

Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid J:

MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT

[1] This a decision on an application for revision brought by the applicant who was charged at the Melaka Sessions Court with four offences under s 17(a) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 court judge (‘trial judge’) found at the end of the prosecution case that the prosecution had established a prima facie case under all the charges against the applicant and consequently called the applicant to enter his defence.

[2] The primary ground for this application centers around the alleged failure of the trial judge in judicially and critically examining the prosecution’s evidence and in arriving at a conclusion that the elements of the offence under s 17(a)MACC Acts 50MACC Acts 50MACC Act

[3] The applicant seeks to move this court to find that the trial judge’s finding of prima facie was not supported by evidence, manifestly wrong and illegal. The applicant claims that the trial judge committed material failures in evaluating the prosecution’s evidence. These failures are:[

(a)the incorrect application of presumption under s 50MACC Act

(b)failure to consider that there was selective prosecution against the applicant;

(c)failure to appreciate whether or not the applicant had the necessary criminal intention; and

(d)failure to consider inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

It is argued that these failures amounted to substantial injustice on the applicant and therefore the applicant should not have been ordered to enter his defence.

[4] Based on those reasons, the applicant contends that this court has the necessary revisionary powers under ss 35Courts of Judicature Act 1964323Criminal Procedure Code

ARGUMENTS OF PARTIESBy the applicant

[5] The applicant’s main contention in this application is that under s 35CJAcourt’s power of revision is exercisable at any stage of the criminal proceedings and therefore this court is not precluded from reviewing a decision made on the finding of prima facie. Section 35

… the High Court shall have general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all subordinate courts, and may in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, if it appears desirable in the interests of justice, either of its own motion or at the instance of any party or person interested, at any stage in any matter or proceeding, whether civil or criminal …

[6] Thus where it is desirable to serve the interest of justice, it is argued that this court should be ready and willing to interfere with any decision on the finding of a prima facie wrongfully or illegally made by the trial court. The words used in s 35CJAs 323 CPC Court with wide powers of revision not limited only to final judgments or orders such as after conviction and sentence but includes interlocutory finding or orders. Section 323 (1)

A Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of that subordinate Court.

[7] Reference was made to the decision in and Ng Siam Cheng Sufiah v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGHC 281; [2020] 4 SLR 659Court of Singapore held the view that the powers of a court in hearing revision applications are wide and not limited to only final orders:

[37] With respect, both cases cited by the respondent appeared to have been read outside of their proper contexts. In any event, the applicable case law