FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
(FIR)
-Giving information of the commission of
an offence
-Section 107 CPC (1)-(4)
-The word information must be
distinguished from complainant
What is Fir?
PP v Mohd Musa Amarullah [2002]
-It is the first of such information received
from an informant with regards to the
commission of an offence
-To get the police into motion to
investigate the commission of the crime
and it is to get the ball rolling
Contents of FIR
 Date, time, place
 No need to elaborate circumstances
of the case
Herchun Singh & Ors v PP [1969]
-The time for a report to be lodged is not
specified. ( Whether it should be done
immediately/later). However, the FIR
should be lodged at the earliest opportunity
to ensure no concontion/meddling of the
facts.
(When a police report is admitted under
the law, it is necessary that it should be
made before investigation commenced. If
made after investigation, it will not be an
FIR.
Would a delay of making a report affect
the admissibility of the report?
The court will look into the facts and
circumstances that cause the delay
In PP v Mohammad Terang bin Amit
[1999], the court decided that delay were
reasonable where it involved a 12 years
old and 10 years old victim of rape.
Because as young as that, would they
know what to do?
Meanwhile, in Muhd Saifuddin Ahmad
Yassin v PP [2007] the court held that the
delay wasn’t reasonable because the victim
was a police officer & it was 3 days after
the robbery. Such delay wasn’t acceptable
for an ex cop of 27 years experience.
Significance/ use of FIR
-can be used in order to contradict the
statement made earlier which is
excapsulated under Section 145 & to
corroborate the evidence that was made
under Sec 157 EA.
-if the statement is the same, it strengthens
the capability of the witness
-if it contradicts, it will lead to
inconsistency.
Balanchandran v PP[2005]
-Fir is not a piece of substantive evidence
but it is used to corroborate or contradict
evidence.
Tan Cheng Kooi v PP
-Fir is used as a previous statement to
corroborate or contradict the author.
Production of FIR during Trial
 FIR
 NON FIR
-usually, PP will produce FIR during the
criminal trial
-generally as in Balanchandran v PP, FIR
is not essential to be produced during trial
if theres no requirement to corroborate the
witness testimony. If the testimonty of as a
single witness is believed/ credible, then it
is sufficient to establish any facts.
However, there are cases which states that
if is essential for FIR to be produced.
1) witness who witnessed the
commission of the crime is the
only witness to the case
2) Or if the witness is a fundamental/
important witness
3) When there are more than 1
witness, the statement from other
witnesses can be used to
corroborate evidence.
PP v Abdul Razak Johari [1991]
-A police officer, driving police car by
himself when he saw a suspicious man
holding a suspicisous looking plastic bag.
When he checked it out & poked the
plastic bag, white powder (drugs) came
out. Held: if the FIR is not tendered and
witness is a fundamental witness, the
production of the FIR would actually be
essential.
Tan Cheng Kooi v PP[1972]
-FIR should be recorded at earliest
opportunity
FIR is made and not tendered would give
rise to adverse inference under section
114(g) EA
Pendakwaraya v Ai Kiang a/l Endin
Wun[1992]
It is not essential to tender FIR where there
is present other evidence despite
complainant being fundamental/ principle
witness.
NON FIR
1. A report is non FIR if the report is
made after investigation has
commenced (VIjayaratnam v PP)
2. A report is not FIR if it is made at
the end of police investigation
Chee Chi Tiam v PP)
3. A report is not FIR if an arrest has
already been made ( PP v Kang
Ho So)
4. If no FIR has been made, the court
would not use it as a ground to
throw out the case, because in
essence, FIR is not a substantive
evidence.
( PP v Foong Chee Cheong)
Tan Cheng Kooi
- If there’s no Fir ( because the
information is not reduced into
writing and complaint is made
verbally or because their matter
is too urgent) the person
receiving the complaint must
provide explanation whether he
subsequently reduced the
 information into writing or why
he did not reduce the matter
into writing. Ct: hence why the
FIR would be recorded at the
earliest opportunity
PP v Lee Eng Kooi
-An arrest report was not an FIR. In order
to assess the truthfulness and consistency
of the statement made by witness, the
report can be used.
Pp v Lee Ah Ha
-A police report can also be used.
S107A, A report on status of investigation
( rights of the informant)
Certified true copy of FIR shall be
admitted as evidence of the content in the
original report ( S 108 CPC)
-Accused has the right to be given the FIR
in order to defend himself.
Actions subsequently taken by the police
upon receiving FIR
-it depends on whether it is seizable or non
seizable offences
SEIZABLE OFFENCE
-May arrest w/o warrant
-S109(1) not below the rank of Seargant
( more skill and experience in conducting
investigation)
-S110(1) the police may choose not to
investigate if
a. the offence is not serious in
nature
b. not sufficient ground to
proceed.
NON SEIZABLE OFFENCE
-shall not arrest w/o warrant
1. Police wishes to investigate
- S108(2):must obtain the OTI
from PP
- S108(3) any police officer,
(Sergeant or
above) may exercise the power
in respect of the investigation.
Except power to arrest w/o
warrant.
2. Police does not wish to investigate
-S 108(1) CPC
-S 128 CPC
-S 133 CPC
Duties/ Powers of police during
investigation
-S 120 CPC
-Duties to submit papers to PP
-without unnecessary delay (regardless of
the 3 months period, you still can submit
it)
Ommission of FIR
-To what extent is the omission in the FIR
would affect the admissibility of FIR
GR: the omission contained in the FIR
would not on its own lead to the case being
thrown out because there is no need to 4. Senior Assistant Commissioner of
provide elaborate details in the FIR Police
5. Assistant Commissioner of Police
6. Superintendent of Police
Under what circumstances, omission of the 7. Deputy Superintendent of Police
FIR would be fatal? 8. Assistant Superintendent of Police
9. Inspector
Lee Ah Seng v PP[2007]
-The omission to state the place where it is
committed & pursuit that led to death of Subordinate Officers
the deceased. Under these circumstances
1. Sub Insp
the omission was fatal.
2. Seargeant major
3. Seargant
4. Corporal
Herchun Singh v PP [1969]
5. Lance corporal
-In determining whether or not the 6. Constable
omission leads to discrepancy between the
FIR & the witness statement, court may
look act the omission in an objective -If the offence is a non seizable offce, and
manners & the court would see the facts & if theres no offence in the 1st place, the
circumstances surrounding the case. The police cannot use its power to compel any
court may in the absence of any other person to answer his/her question.
evidence refuse it because of the omission.

Police Powers to investigate
-Vested power under Police Act, so the
police can proceed to investigate matters
which they feel the need to further
investigation
Anthony v PP[1958]
If OTI is not obtained, then any question
put forward by the police to the person
whom the police is investigating, the
person is not obliged to answer according
to Section 112.

-Their general duty to investigate: s3 &

s20 Police Act
Section 111
-Special powers of police to investigate
-next step is to call the person to the police
station

Senior Police officers Dato Seri Ahamd Said Hamdan v Tan

Boon Wah [2010
1. The Commissioners( includes Insp
General of Police)
2. Deputy Insp General of Police
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Uttahaya Kumar Ponnusamy v PP Tan Too Kia v PP [1980]
[2005] -by breaking is done to determine the
language the person is comfortable with so
1. The order in writing should be
he can answer all subsequent questions.
served by the IO who conducted
the case. But, another police officer
had served the notice in writing &
Akin Khan b Abd Rahman v PP[1987]
particular officer is known as
-The statement that was taken down was
Lance Corporal zulkifli when in
later held inadmissible because it was
fact the IO is actually DSP GAN.
conducted in Malay when the person
The court held that the IO is
mother tongue was Pakistani although he
supposed to issue the order in
also spoke a bit of Thai & Pattani Malay.
writing. The court highlighted &
elaborated the definition of police
officer referred to in S 111(1) & (2)
Sandra Margaret Birch v PP[1978]
and as a result of the non
-The landlord was hardly in the house, and
compliance of procedure, the
the lady’s close friend has access to the
notice issued ( warrant of arress)
house. In determining whether the landlord
ovas not properly issued & should
is acquainted, the court looked at the facts,
be cancelled. Any form of retention
circumstances & decided the police was
flowing from that warrant is also
right in not calling landlord in the process
unlawful.
of investigation because the landlord is not
acquainted to the case.
Section 111(2)
-Presuming the person has come, then the Section 112(2)
police can undertake or do recording -If you want to answer you have to be
statement usually Inspector will take down honest.
the statement, and will be assisted by -If it will jeorpadise you, you can avoid
another officer ( can be a seargant) answering/not answer.
Police have to warn earlier about these
If more serious cases, usually ASP take
rights
down the statement & statement &
Inspector will assist.

-When a person statement is taken down

under s 112, the statement is required
S 112(5) Recording of statement must be
under the law as provided in Husdi v PP
made in a language someone
-If not, it will not be in compliance with
S112(5)
PP v Kandiah
- A person whose statement is taken under
s112 is obliged to tell truth when he has
not exercised his right to remain silent.
Anthony v PP
-Police has the right to invoke s 112 if it
involves a seizable case & in a non
seizable case, OTI must first be obtained
“legally bound” in s112 can be cross
referred to s176 & s177 PC
If the person who has agreed to answer a
question but did not answer the question,
would this particular act amouting to an
illegal act- by cross referring to sec 43 PC
S 83A Child Act
-before any statement is taken down, the
police must contact parents/guardian
Police must give warning Sec 112(5)
-Whether it is a mandatory req for stm to
be taken down in writing? It is orally
made, if the oral statement admissible?
Para (5) says whenever possible the
statement must be made in writing.
Jaya raman & ors
-ct: if an oral stm is made by a person to a
police officer/above the rank of inspector
can be admitted as a form of evidence, if it
has not been reduced into writing provided
that strong justification is made for the
failure to reduce the stm into writing.
*para(5) doesn’t specify the form of stm
that must be taken down. Issue will be
arise if the ct need to establish the
credibility of the witness when the
inconsistency betw what is written in s112
stm & what is said in the court
*Whether the Q&A form is accepted or
whether a narrative form is accepted?
-Various decisions, in earlier cases, it must
be proved that such statement was made in
answer to the Q made in the accused
PP v Pachiappan, it is not essential for it
to be in Q & A form, but whenever
possible, this form should be adopted.
Statement can also be taken down in a
narrative form. What need to be proved is
that the accused must answer to all the
questions.
PP v Abdullah Ambek, what is necessary
to establish is that the statement made by
accused is in answer to the questions made
by the IO.
*What if theres delay in reducing the stm
into writing?
Section 112(5) does not specify the exact
time)
PP v Veeran Kutty
-Facts & Circumstances of this case didn’t
allow for the stm to be made into writing.
Held: term ‘wherever possible, can be
interpreted as whenever reasonably
possible. Due to the urgency of the case,
police is unable to reduce the stm
immediately. ( Failure to do so would not
render the stm inadmissible if theres a
reasonable explanation for it)
*The importance of reading back the stm
to the accused in a language in which he
made it is to allow/enable him to make
corrections. ( if he signed w/o
understanding = not admissible)
 statement made under S112 CPC is not
voluntarilty made. S 112 must be read
*Why affix signature/ put down thumb
toether with s 114 CPC.
print?
- To authenticate that you are the maker of
the stm
Yusuf b Omar v PP
- To show voluntariness
- Stm given in s112 is contrary to the
- To safeguard the interest of the person
witness stm in court. Accused was charged
who made the stm & police officer
under s 193 pc. Appealed to HC was
dismiss, COA was also dismissed ( def
argued that the stm was made involuntary).
Abdul Ghani Bin Jusoh v PP
When accused is charged under s 193 PC,
- The signature/ thumb print to a written
it is not necessary for the PP to prove
stm is not mandatory.
under s 112 that the element of
voluntariness exist. Hence it is not
mandatory for the court to hold a trial in a
RECAP
trial. The person was informed of his
rights already before any stm is given as in
s 112(4) CPC.

S 113- admissibility/ procedure of

admitting statement made
S 113(1)- GR: no statement shall be used
in evidence if it was obtained in police
investigation ( not admissible)
*Exceptions?
*When there is inconsistency between
statement made during investigation & S 113(2)- any witness other than accused,
trial stm made, if court thinks fit in the interest
Issue: Whether or not there is of justice to impeach the credit of witness.
voluntariness in providing the s112 stm
S 113(3)- former stm, made during police
Nurliyana Sulaiman v PP investigation, admitted to support his
-Accused is charged under s193 PC for the defence during trial.
oral evidence given in ct which conflict
with the stm given to the police under
s112. Argued that the stm was not given
voluntarily. At Sessions Ct: Accused was
guilty & convicted. Appeal: Upheld the
judgment of trial court, stm made under s
112 cpc must be made voluntarily for it to
have any value at all as an evidece. Burden
is on accused person to show that
Search On Premise (Section 54, 56, 58)
Section 54 must be distinguish with
section 51
*Reason to believe
Ahmad Ishak v PP
- App Penghulu, guy convicted charged /
police deposit RM 2K. It is convicted as he
believe @ reason to know that the cash is
stolen property. Look on fact &
circumstances case / didn’t know the
charge has been stolen and use a chat.
-Interpret reason to believe by section 51
An Indra P Nallathamby v PP
-mother apply to court in order to clarify
the past mortem finding
I. Whether the magistrate applies
his judicial mind by granting
the search warrant
II. The magistrate did applies his
judicial mind by indicating
specific times and place to
production of court
*Involve objective statement on the part of
magistrate
*Why need to cross refer section 51?
Section 51
1) court, police officer, police
investigation, property doc, necessary,
investigation, trial, inquiry other
proceeding.
a)court- Issue summons
b) PO- Written order
-Search warrant issued under sec 54 can be
invoked if theres no compliance of s 54
S51
-failed to produce property/doc
-Property/ doc in the posession
- for the purpose of justice
Purpose:
1. Whatever doc/ property, the court ,
police want them such property/
doc must be some relation to the
subject matter.
2. These doc/property can throw
somelight to police investigation
3. It helps court, police to supply link
in the chain
Procedure under sec 51
PP v Au She Chun
-doc to facilitate the trial and proceeding.
PP v Raymond Chia Kim Chwee
-2 resp had applied to Session Cout judge
for various doc in ct
-Including 5 doc listed in the charge
-All doc received by the AG chamber in
connection to the case
-When application is made, it is made
generally in nature and not specify the doc
that needed.
*Court distinguish the wies applicable
during trial/after trial
-during trial, before doc are produced, the
court need to see the relevancy of the doc
first.
Section 51(A)
1) Procesution, before, accused
PP v Raymond
a)FIR
b) part of evidence Ct: With regards to application made to s
c) favourable to the acc, signed 51, the court must consider the justice of
the case and what stage of proceeding the
2) prosecution may not supply an fact
case is made
contrary to public interest
-general application for unspecified doc
under s57 should not be entertained.
Section 51
-Discovery of doc
- It is up to court to grant order of person Sec 56
-intermation and after such inquiry
Section 31A(a)
-has reason to believe
- Duty is imposed on the prosecution to
-offence have been committed
supply the doc to facilitate the trial and
-investigation into any offence
proceeding.
-may be found in any place
-by warrant
-search the person
Trial by ambush
-for day such evidence
-Doc in criminal cases are doc given after
-to seize it and bring it before the
accused is charged and before the trial
magistrate
commence.
-Usually it takes place during the first case
management
Reason to believe is a mandatory
-Exercise opinion lawyer
requirement or it will ended being invasion
of privacy.
DSAI v PP (NO2)
ct: Doc must be supplied to accused before
Chong Chieng Jen v Mohamad Irwan
trial begin
Hafis
- mandatory provision for pp to supply the Mandatory
- infor must be well founded
accused in S 51A (a)(b)(c) requirement
- reason to believe
2 search warrant issued
 S 51 must be read independently i. to conduct search and resident of
from S 51A app
S 51- discretionary power of court
ii. conduct search at app firm
 S 51A- to supply documents
On the ground that the kept evidence
-S 51A should be usded to interpret S 51 incriminating in nature ( seditious) when
- S 51 is still relevant can be invoked for he was MP Bandar Kuching
doc which is not stated under s 51A
H: FC set aside the search warrant and
order the return of the seized laptop OTI.
1. Before search warrant issued, there
must be credible information
2. No police report/relevant articles to
justify the application of search
warrant.
3. Mere believe is not sufficient under
s 56 instead mere must be a reason
to believe.
24/10/2018
Section 17( search person in place
searched under warrant)
*Why it is important search list?
- To make sure thing found list in the list
Police
-To show integrity of police officer
The principle higlighted on PP v Lee Su
Lian, the nature for the ct whatever list in
the ct is listed and it is important.
2. To prevent possibility of the list
Inconsistent in the 1st , search list will do it
- Sometimes, search list is also produced in
the court when there are inconsistencies of
search item found.
Prevent possibility of concortion as
illustrated in the case San Suha v PP
3. Search list only inconporate exhibit
which would taken possession by
officer to assist them
Yong Wee Lee v PP
-The subject of the charge in case involve
firearm(revolver). What was provided is
the pistol (different)
*not a statutory requirement that the
person who received search 1st to signed
search list as form of acknowledgment ,
but in practice person receiving search list
copy is ask to ask on the original list of the
SL
*Signature of acknowledgment not a form
of admission of content in search list-
Wong Chee Lian v PP ( 1997)
*How important search list on the Trial
GR: not a requirement for PP to render SL
to act @ def itself, but in practice search
list usually produce for 2 reason;
i. To show integrity of police
officer
ii. Assist the ct in determining the
credible of the witness
It is highlighted on case PP v Gurcharan
Singh & Ors Mal Singh, that this happen
when there is contradict stm what say in
court and what found in search list
-On this particular event , search list is
important to assist the ct to determine the
credibility of witness
*Production during Trial
1. Search list is not made and not
tender
-The inference that can be made is that it
will cast doubt on the bona fide or integirty
of search conducted by police
-Give opportunity to ct to scrutinize the
objective behind the search and afford
ground of scrutinize on part of the ct.
Effect: The essence of tendering list itself
would not entitle the app to
acquital/accused to acquital[San Su ha]
2. Search list is made but it is not
tender
*How fatal is that to prosecution case?
-When it is conflict with the content of SL
wit evidence posed by witness in the ct
-When it is in consistency
In Gui Loh Singh v PP
-FCJ, search prepare by one police office
name insp nordin and evidence was given
by P officer in ct, when he recover the
packaging of drug, drug received from app
carpet. However the search list show that it
was Insp Nordin who recovered the
package.
Appeal: Recognised the trial judge had
failed to recognised the certificate of
search list
2) failed to recognise difference content
list n what had been said by Insp Nordin
3) not view whole evidence objectively.
*When there is inconsistency, sec 114(g)
may invoked when there is failure to
produce the search list.
Failure = ACUTE CONFLICTS
With the content of search list
Baharuddin Hassan v PP,
-ct recognised there is disrepancy between
witness evidence as to the time and place
where search list was prepared and identity
of the plastic basket that was recovered.
These 2 cases show how it is fatal to it.
Q: What are the circumstances when non
production of search list would not be
fatal.
1. Yow Wee Sing v PP (2012)
-The defence had not requested for the
production of search list in order to show
that def would have been prejudice if it not
tendered.
2. The defence could not case any
doubt of bona fide of objective of
party when conducting search.
-In other words police has
conducted search in integriy
manner and no…
PP v Nasaruddin Daud &
another
*PRESENCE OF OCCUPANT
Sec 65 CPC provides requirement the
presence occupant
- Permitted to attend during the search and
In Yong Moh Sin, search still lawfull only
the presence occupant
*What is effect on illegal search, when
there is non compliance
- If procedure not comply, what happen to
item that had been seized non compliance
when search item is conducted.
PP v Sri Daren
-When search carry out and when it is not
mandatory requirement of CPC any
incriminating item found during search, it
admissibility would not be affected or
tainted by illegality of the search
Sameenathan v PP [1937]
Wong Lee Yuen Eguk v PP[1953]
Soh Kim Hai v R [1959]
-any item that had been illegally obtained
do not affect its admissibility
Court not concern with illegality of item
seize, what ct concern is relevant of item
seize.
-Adopted more conscious when issue
arises the ct decide whether or not the
admissibility of the item obtain wherever
there is no compliance of law can operate
unfairly against the accused.
Cheng Tee Swen v PP [1964]
ct: with regards admissibility of evidence
when it is necessary that justice is done ct
shall not be held during the trial on any
technical agreed.
and court further, evidence obtain would
be admissible provided that the
admissibility would not operate unfairly
against the accused.
-The judges has discretion to disallow the
admissibility of evidence if it would
operate unfairly against the accused for
any taking when some evidence retrieved
from accused the retrieved was made
through the trick to give evidence.
Actually highlighted in the case Henry v
PP, director (1952) 1 ALL England Report
108
-Also discussed in Singapore case
SM Submit Ltd v PP (1997) 3 SMR 922
S59, read together with section 16(2)
Section 59- shall demand, on allow, afford
in excess cannot be obtained under para
(2) then section 16(2)
-In order..
-To break open any outer @ innder door
SEIZURE
Sec 62A
-Search w/o warrant, search any place
where any such coin
-Provide for police for counterfeit seize all
the coin
Sec 62B- Counterfeit Seize
Sec 63- Search and Seizure
Section 21- Power to seize weapon
- Person arrested and offensive weapon
found on them
*Undertake police to search and seize both
item
Sec 62
Yong Mooi Sin
Sec 116- Search

*Police can invoke Sec 435 CPC
-power of police to seize property
suspected stolen
1. Circumstances
- Seized any property alleged that had been
stolen
-Create suspicion, property item could be
found that used…
** Application and scope is wide in nature,
this particular section can be invoke where
the object of search are not found on
search party but other incriminating
evidence which are not related to the
actual purpose of the search is discovered.
Scenario 2 : Police found luggage no
shirt .. organise gang
-Police need to strike out the balance
interest that involve gang.
- right not incriminatory and to prevent the
balance of to strike out.
*This is the guideline that could afford
police ground to believe that an offence
has been committed.
a. Looking on incriminatory evidence
police has ground that serious
ground has been committed.
b. The Article/Item found could be
result of crime re stolen property of
article found could be fruit result.
c. An important evidence to show that
the crime has been committed for
motorcycle bearing reg AG 11
found and person leave on the other
side.
d. The person in possession of item is
either perpetrator or an
accessory/accomplice to the crime.
In case Re Kawah Video Sdn Bhd (1987)
-Provided that whatever incriminating
evidence that police found and has been
seized may not be kept longer than what it
is necessary
-Search warrant was obtain on some
specific article or items which had
infringed copyright act 69. However what
was seized was some item that which not
specify on search warrant. In lower ct
magistrate as police officer to release item
as not specified on search item.
When this case when for revision, ct:
Police by some implied extension under
search warrant is authorise to seize the
item. Ct refer to provision in copyright Act
and Power of Police under Common law to
seize the item.
Search on Person
Sec 20 + Se 20A
Sec 20A
-shall apply to any search of person/
-conducted by any officer of any
enforcement agency
4th Schedule
4 Type: i) Pat down
ii)Strip Search
iii) Intimate search
iv) intrusive search
*All type is different type of lost, must
look on what that type lost
Part 1, 4th Schedule:-
1) A person arrested only if comply
with any objective
a. Obtain incriminating
evidence for offences
suspected
b. To seize item
c. In order to find or to
preserve evidence &
prevent item from destroy
-When police wants to conduct search
person must comply all object other
ground on arrest.
2) Person arrested …
1) Pat down search
- no need police all/ inspect outer
part only
Para 6- procedures
2) Strip Search
-if remove upper, outer maintain
(7), search involving removal of
same part of outer clothings.. partly
clothes allowing him to dress him
upper body. In line para 9
-not requirement to remove all strip
at same time
-reasonable to do it when person
concealing some fact on it
- It must be Inspector and above,
para (9) outline procedure of
strip search, must conduct found
in para(d)
3) Intimate Search
-Consist physical examination
person arrested body orifices other
ear, nose mouth
4) Intrusive Search
-when suspected drug consume,
only way to remove through
medical surgery
Procedure
-only conducted by Govt Medical
Officer under Govt…
However
-before operation, police must wide
in para 14(1)
-approval by police in charge
police.
Para (3), time as it must be soon as
possible
Para 15(a)(b)
-Person arrested must brought to
nearest hospital as soon as
practicable
-Item that is hidden by body
c) requirement of search list
*Important to comply with CPC provision
when intrusive conducted, highlighted.

PP v Bayati Heider(2014)
-The accused was detain at Klia by one
police officer and search team when police
conducted full search not find any
incriminating evidence but when and s
party invited accused to drink, he refuse to
join search party, give rise to suspicion on
part of the police
This suspicion confirm when accused not
move and sit right up right in examination
room.
-Accused was send to Serdang hospital
some foreign object found in intestine. He
was guarded by 3 officer by rotation basis
and duty of chief officer is to inform the
time when accused excreated substances in
any body when he pass motion.
- When police excuated, 67 capsule found
in his intestine. This capsule retrieved and
pass to chief officer and must officer pass
to Chemist.
Content: Methamphetamine
Issue:
1) Accused product the subject how
the thing is excuated
Ct: not a single photograph tender
which capture the capsule excuated
from person body.
-no search list was prepared and signed
by officer & signed to counter signed.
-This rule cover on search list
-not tender into police officer on that
particular night
-The preparation of search list is req as
provided in sec 30A + Fourth Schedule
Ct: Drug was actually retrieved by
excreation from the accused
2) The intrusive search only can be
conducted by govt officer &
medical, this statutory requirement
not comply.
- Only police officer absence
- Accused acquitted and
discharged, ct: search list was
not prepare PP failed to prove
that capsule is some capsule
produced by chemist and
produce to the ct and no
photograph.
- No search 1st provided
-PP failed prove prima facie case against
the accused.
Mostafa Lesaniborogh Ibrahim v PP
(2017) v PP
-In judgement ct listed in 4th schedule , the
procedure of intrusive search
- Excretion made from accused body
through his bowel movement. Ct: Wheher
excretion through bowel movement falls in
intrusive search.
Look on definition that the words removal
under indicate negative positive, action
under medical express done on the acc,
therefore lower bowel not falls meaning
intensive search. It must be an medical +
govt officer only.