PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal on Friday (Oct 3) overturned a High Court ruling requiring an investigating officer to be physically present during remand proceedings for suspects under investigation.
A three-member bench comprising Justices Azman Abdullah, Mohamed Zaini Mazlan and Noorin Badaruddin allowed the prosecution's appeal, ruling that an investigating officer's presence was not mandated under the law.
Delivering the court's decision, Justice Mohamed Zaini said under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the investigating officer's statutory duty is to transmit a copy of relevant police diary entries to the Magistrate and to ensure the suspect is brought before the court.
"Section 117 of the CPC does not, in express terms or by necessary implication, stipulate that the investigating officer for a case must personally attend and present the application for remand," he said.
Justice Mohamed Zaini said the absence of the investigating officer during remand proceedings does not jeopardise the suspect's liberty or undermine constitutional rights under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
He said the requirement for the suspect to be presented before the Magistrate, the obligation to submit relevant diary entries and the duty of the Magistrate to record written reasons if a remand is granted collectively serve as a check and balance against any abuse of power.
He added that Magistrates do not merely act as rubber stamps and their decisions are based on the adequacy and credibility of the investigation rather than the physical presence of the investigating officer.
He also said investigating officers were often tasked with handling numerous cases simultaneously and may be required to attend court proceedings as witnesses, so they may be unavailable for remand hearings due to other duties or official training, or unforeseen circumstances.
He added that given the constitutional requirement to bring a suspect before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, it would be impractical and burdensome to insist that only the investigating officer directly assigned to the case is required to conduct the remand proceedings before the Magistrate's Court.
Justice Mohamed Zaini said a rigid interpretation of Section 117 would impair the operational efficiency of the police force and ultimately hinder the investigative process.
The case arose when two suspects were brought before a Magistrate for remand proceedings under Section 117 of the CPC on May 6 this year, with a sergeant-major appearing on behalf of the investigating officer during the proceedings. The investigating officer was unable to attend the proceedings due to matters related to another case.
The Magistrate allowed the police's application to remand the duo for two days.
The following day, the suspects applied for a revision at the High Court, which ruled the remand illegal due to the investigating officer's absence, prompting the prosecution to appeal.
High Court Judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin had set aside the Magistrate's remand order, stating that the term "police officer making the investigation" in Section 117 (1) CPC must specifically refer to the investigating officer.
The suspects, aged 41 and 31 years old, were being investigated under Section 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952 and Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. They have since been charged in court.
In Friday's proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutors Datuk Seri Saiful Edris Zainuddin, Zaki Asyraf Zubir and Zander Lim Wai Keong appeared for the prosecution while lawyer Collin Arvind Andrew appeared for the suspects. - Bernama
