JUDGMENT

Hashim Yeop A Sani J:

The accused, a Member of Parliament, appeared before me last year, his case having been transferred from the Sessions Court, Lumut, to the High Court, Ipoh, under s. 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was then charged on twelve counts under s. 4(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 for allegedly using false certificates pertaining to certain development projects in Lumut District, Perak. It was then agreed to proceed only with three of the charges first, the total amount of money involved in the three charges being $2,000.

In that proceeding Counsel for the accused raised a preliminary objection on the validity of s. 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code. I made my ruling in Public Prosecutor v. Su Liang Yu and this ruling was upheld in another case by the Federal Court [1977] 2 MLJ 155.

On 17 April 1978 the case was again brought before me to proceed with the same charges. At the commencement of the proceeding the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor tendered the amended charges which differed only in format but not in substance from the original charges. Before the charges were read to the accused I asked the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor as to the reason why this case should be heard in the High Court and not in the Sessions Court since only not so long ago three accused persons were charged in the Taiping Sessions Court and the original charges were under the same section of the same Act involving a sum of money far exceeding the present charges before me - to be exact, the total amount being over $3m (vide Taiping Sessions Court Arrest Cases No. SC(A) 39/76 and 1-3/77). The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor candidly replied that he himself was not aware of any reason why this case should be heard in the High Court. I emphasised to both Counsel that what was decided before in Su Liang Yu's case was the question of the validity of s. 418A of the Criminal Procedure Codeand whether the Public Prosecutor has the power to transfer the case from the lower Court to the High Court. Thus that is what s. 418A is all about. My answer was in the affirmative as was also confirmed by the Federal Court. Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code sets out the power of the High Court itself to transfer cases to itself or from a Subordinate Court to another Subordinate Court having regard to all or any of those considerations set out in sub-section (1) of that section. One would easily and falsely come to a conclusion that there appears to be a lacuna in s. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code in that as it is, it is a one-way traffic in the sense that the High Court, using any of the criteria set out in sub-section (1), may transfer a case from one Subordinate Court to another or from a Subordinate Court to itself (the High Court). That section does n ot however give the power to transfer a case from the High Court to a Subordinate Court. On looking at s. 417 calmly one can then see the rationale of it and that is that a case which was triable by a Subordinate Court was never brought by the Public Prosecutor before the High Court. The new s. 418A has changed all that. Now I was confronted with a case which was within the competency and jurisdiction of a Subordinate Court to hear but was brought by the Public Prosecutor under the new s. 418A: giving no reason whatsoever for doing so. Not that the section requires the Public Prosecutor to set out the reasons. But common sense can sometimes tell the reason, like difficult points of law involved or any element of public interest. In my view what is unwritten in s. 418A is the question of difficulties in points of law involved or the question of public interest. The latter is absolutely within the domain of the Public Prosecutor provided that he is candid about it and the situation is convincing enough to the Court for I do not think that the power of the High Court as set out in para 12 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 shoul