JUDGMENT

Augustine Paul J:

On 25 January 2002 the accused was charged with an offence of rape in the Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur where he made an oral application to be supplied with particulars of the witnesses and their statements to the police and the sketch plan and photographs taken at the scene. The application was dismissed. Then on 22 November 2002 he made a written application to the Sessions Court asking for the following:

(a) Bahawa sidituduh dibekalkan dengan salinan kesemua pernyataan-pernyataan bertulis yang dibuat oleh saspek-saspek lain, saksi-saksi, pengadu dan mana-mana orang lain berkenaan kes ini yang telah dibuat semasa penyiasatan mengenai kes ini dan/atau yang berkenaan dengan kes ini;

(b) Bahawa sidituduh dibekalkan dengan Rajah Kasar serta kunci Rajah Kasar, Lakaran atau Peta dan Gambar Foto yang diambil berkenaan tempat kejadian di mana hal perkara yang dinyatakan dalam kertas pertuduhan telah berlaku;

(c) Bahawa sidituduh dibekalkan dengan nama kesemua saspek-saspek lain, saksi-saksi, pengadu dan mana-mana orang lain berkenaan kes ini;

(d) Bahawa sidituduh dibekalkan apa-apa dokumen, lapuran, lapuran perubatan, lapuran polis, lapuran kimia, lapuran DNA serta senarai maklumat bahan-bahan yang berkenaan dengan kes dan pertuduhan terhadap sidituduh;

(e) Bahawa sidituduh dibekalkan dengan maklumat mengenai kawat cam serta nama mereka yang mengambl bahagian dalam kawat cam termasuk nama-nama saspek lain yang dihadapkan di hadapan kawat cam;

(f) Bahawa sidituduh dibekalkan dengan lapuran polis yang menyatakan gari telah digunakan dalam insiden halperkara pertuduhan ATAU secara alternatif mendapat pengesahan bahawa lapuran sedemikian tidak pernah wujud;

(g) Perintah bahawa kesemua yang diminta dalam permohonan ini dibekalkan kepada sidituduh dalam masa sepuluh (10) hari daripada tarikh perintah;

(h) Lain-lain perintah yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia fikirkan adil dan wajar.

The application was fixed for hearing on 28 February 2003. The date was then brought forward to 17 February 2003. A request for adjournment by counsel was rejected by the Sessions Court and the application was withdrawn. The accused then refiled a similar application. It was fixed for hearing on 19 March 2003. On that day the application was dismissed by the Sessions Court on the ground that the matter has already been adjudicated upon when the oral application was dismissed. On 23 April 2003 the accused filed a notice of motion in the High Court praying for a similar order in the exercise of its revisionary powers.

The applications made in the High Court and in the Sessions Court are for the production of documents considered to be necessary for the trial that the accused is facing. What the defence in a criminal trial is entitled to and what it is the duty of the prosecution to provide are to be found in ss. 162, 163 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They do not say that an accused person is entitled to know the means by which the prosecution proposes to prove the facts alleged in the charge (see PP v. Teoh Choon Teck ; [1963] MLJ 34). The only provision of law that deals with an application of the nature made in this case is s. 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("s. 51") which reads as follows:

(1) Whenever any Court or police officer making a police investigation considers that the production of any property or document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before that Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons or such officer a written order to the person in whose possession or power such property or document is believed to be requiring him to attend and produce it or to produce it at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce any property or document shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes the property or document to be produced instead of attendi