Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1177
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NOOR RUWENA MD NURDIN, J
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Appellant
Versus
SANJAY KUMAR SELVAKUMARU – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: WA-41 H-10-05/2025]
Statutory procedures governing breath testing are mandatory. Non-compliance with these procedural requirements, particularly regarding the use of testing equipment and informant duties, constitutes a failure that can result in the exclusion of test results, as it compromises the fairness of the trial under the law.
Headnote:(A) Road Transport Act 1987 - Sections 45A(1), 45B, 45C(1), 45F, 45G and 66(1) - Motor Vehicles (Breath, Blood and Urine Tests) Rules 1995 - Breath test procedures - Mandatory vs. directory requirements - Public Prosecutor's appeal against acquittal - Prosecution's failure to prove prima facie case due to procedural non-compliance.
(B) Evidence - Admissibility - Procedural non-compliance - Whether technical breach of breath testing rules renders test results inadmissible - Principles of fair trial under Federal Constitution - Whether subsidiary legislation (1995 Rules) must be strictly followed to ensure admissibility of breath analyzer results. (Paras 25-29)
(C) Appellate Interference - Scope of review - Whether acquittal at the end of the prosecution case should be disturbed - Need to demonstrate appealable error - Principle that prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt, and compliance with statutory procedures is integral to a fair trial. (Paras 32-33)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was charged with driving with an alcohol concentration exceeding the prescribed limit. At the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the Magistrate acquitted the respondent, citing significant procedural failures by the officer in charge of the breath test, including the failure to use a new mouthpiece for each test and failure to inform the respondent of the requirement to provide two breath specimens as prescribed by the 1995 Rules. The prosecution appealed this decision to the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that while certain superior court interpretations of the relevant sections had been clarified, the prosecution failed to establish compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements set out in the 1995 Rules. The Court held that these rules, enacted under statutory authority, are not merely discretionary and their disregard undermines the fairness of the trial.
Issues: Whether the procedures under the 1995 Rules are mandatory or discretionary, and whether the non-compliance in conducting the breath test necessitates the exclusion of evidence, thereby justifying the acquittal of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: Legislative procedures for breath testing are meant to be strictly observed. A failure to follow these procedures not only breaches subsidiary legislation but potentially undermines the right to a fair trial. The prosecution bears the burden of proving evidence is obtained in accordance with the law; failure to do so justifies an acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.
Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and factual background of the drink-driving charge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. applicability of 1995 rules to breath tests under rta 1987. (Para 5 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. parties' contentions regarding non-compliance with breath test protocols. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legislative intent regarding mandatory compliance with subsidiary procedural rules. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. failure to comply with strict procedural protocols constitutes a miscarriage of justice. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
[1] This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor to the High Court against the decision of the Magistrate's Court that had acquitted the respondent, Sanjay Kumar A/L Selvakumaru, without calling for his defence after finding that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against him on a charge made under s 45A(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 [Act 333].
[2] On 20 May 2025, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal appealing against the acquittal order. The appeal was heard by this Court on 12 March 2026, whereby after hearing the submissions of the parties and considering the records of appeal, I had dismissed the Public Prosecutor's appeal. Dissatisfied with my decision, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 19 March 2026, posing a question to be decided by the appellate Court as follows:
"Sama ada tatacara yang digariskan dalam Jadual Pertama Kaedah-Kaedah Kenderaan Motor (Ujian Nafas, Darah dan Air Kencing) 1995 merupakan keperluan mandatori (mandatory requirement), di mana sebarang ketinggalan atau ketakpatuhan, walaupun tiada keterangan bahawa bacaan yang dihasilkan oleh alat penganalisis tersebut adalah tidak tepat atau telah terjejas, akan menjejaskan kebolehterimaan (admissibility) bacaan yang dihasilkan oleh alat penganalisis nafas; ataupun tatacara tersebut hanyalah keperluan direktori (discretionary requirement), di mana ketakpatuhan tersebut merupakan suatu ketidakaturan yang boleh diperbaiki (curable irregularity), selaras dengan prinsip dalam R v. Twigg [2019] EWCA Crim 1553.".
Background
[3] The charge against the respondent was as follows:
Bahawa kamu pada 3 November 2021 jam lebih kurang 0010 hrs malam di Jalan Damansara Link dari arah Sprint Highway ke arah Bangsar dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur sebagai pemandu kenderaan nombor pendaftaran NDB 9922 telah memandu kenderaan jenis BMW dimana kandungan alkohol di dalam badan kamu didapati sebanyak 315mg dalam 100ml darah iatu lebih 265mg alkohol daripada had yang ditetapkan iaitu 50mg alkohol di dalam 100ml darah dan oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 45A(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (Akta 333) Pindaan 2020.
HUKUMAN
Sekiranya disabitkan hendaklah dihukum penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun dan denda tidak kurang daripada RM10,000.00 dan tidak lebih daripada RM30,000.00 dan di bawah subsekyen (3) hilang kelayakan daripada memegang atau mendapatkan suatu lesen memandu selama tempoh tidak kurang daripada dua tahun dari tarikh sabitan.".
[4] The brief facts of the case were gathered from the grounds of judgment of the Magistrate as follows:
"6. Fakta ringkas bagi kes ini adalah pada 3 November 2021 jam 0010 hrs, Kpl Shazrul Izham bin Abdul Malek (SP2) sebagai anggota bahagian penguatkuasaan Trafik Kuala Lumpur telah menahan sebuah motokar jenis BMW dengan no pendaftaran NDB 9922 di Jalan Damansara Link dari arah Jalan Sprint Highway menghala ke Jalan Bangsar.
7. Kereta tersebut dipandu oleh seorang lelaki India bernama Sanjay Kumar A/L Selvakumaru (No. Kad Pengenalan 780828-05-5375) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Tertuduh") kerana dipercayai di bawah pengaruh alkohol. Kpl Jasni bin Ismail (SP5) telah membawa pulang Tertuduh ke Balai Polis Trafik Tun H.S Lee bagi ujian pernafasan EBA II.
8. Hasil ujian pernafasan menggunakan mesin EBA yang dijalankan oleh
