JUDGMENT

Raja Azlan Shan FJ:

Datuk Harun made a statement to the police on 22 November 1975. That was before the amendment of s. 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code which came into force on 10 January 1976. He was arrested two days later. His counsel objected to the admissibility of that statement contending that the old provisions of s. 113 still applied and it therefore follows that by virtue of that section the statement was not admissible as evidence.

The general rule is that statutes, particularly amending statutes, are prima facie prospective, and retrospective effect is not to be given to them unless by clear words or necessary implication. This presumption does not always apply in cases of legislation dealing with procedure or evidence. Before the amendment Before the amendment a statement recorded under s. 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot, by virtue of s. 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code be used as evidence against the accused. After the amendment such a statement shall be admissible in evidence, at his trial. This only means that the rule governing the manner in which such statement can be used as pvidence at his trial has been amended. The change is one in pro