Unlike Malaysian Official 1, Datuk Harun Idris did not steal from the people, yet he went to jail, served his time, and accepted his punishment

by  Ganesh Sahathevan


Re-posting article below, given the recent revelations of about Malaysian Official 1, and given PM Najib's exhortationThose who are named in the United States' Department of Justice civil lawsuits leading to the freezing of assets linked to 1MDB must take responsibility to clear their name.





 
DATUK HAJI HARUN BIN HAJI IDRIS v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FC KUALA LUMPURSUFFIAN LP, ALI HAMAN AND WAN SULEIMAN FJJFEDERAL COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 19 OF 197621-25, 28-31 MARCH 1977, 1-4, 6 APRIL 1977, 10 June 1977
Criminal Law and Procedure -- Transfer of case from subordinate court to High Court on certificate of Attorney-General -- Whether legal -- Whether section 418A Criminal Procedure Code ultra vires the Constitution -- Corruption -- Admission of statement to police -- Evidence of other possibloffences, wrongly admitted -- Evidence of system -- Evidence Act, 1950, ss 15, 24, 29, 54 -- Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6), ss 138, 177, 417 and 418A -- Fedederal Constitution, Articles 4(1) and 8 Bribery and Corruption -- Whether accused solicited gratification -- Whether gratification was solicited corruptly -- Gratification soliciteas inducement to obtain approval of application for State land -- Whetheaccused solicited and accepted money corruptly -- Whether accused "agent" -- Prevention of Corruption Act,1961, ss 3, 4 and 9 Constitutional Law -- Legislation giving discretion to Attorney-General to issue certificatfor transfer of case from subordinate court to High Court -- Whether contrary to Federal Constitution -- Right to Equality -- FederaConstitution Articles 4(1) and 
This was an appeal from the decision of Raja Azlan Shah FJ. ( [1977] 1 MLJ 15).The appellant had beenconvicted on three charges of corruption, in that he as Mentri Besar of Selangor (a) solicited the sum of$250,000 for U.M.N.O. as an inducement to obtain the approval of the Executive Council in respect of anapplication for a piece of State land; (b) being a member of a public body accepted for U.M.N.O. the sum of$25,000 as inducement to obtain such approval and (c) accepted for U.M.N.O. the sum of $225,000 as aninducement to obtain such approval.The learned trial judge sentenced the appellant to one year's imprisonment in respect of the first charge and2 years' imprisonment in respect of each of the second and third charges, all the sentences to runconcurrentlyHe also ordered payment of the sum of $225,000 to U.M.N.O.SelangorThe appellantappealed.On appeal it was argued (a) that section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code (under the provisions of whichthe case of the appellant had been transferred from the subordinate court to the High Court for trial) wasinconsistent with Article 8 and therefore unconstitutional and void by virtue of Article 4; (b) that the verdictwas not supported by such evidence as was admissible.
Held:
(1) section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code is not discriminatory, as although it uses thewords "any particular case" it does not apply specifically to the particular case against theaccused. The section applies to all criminal cases triable in a subordinate court;(2) a preliminary inquiry is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution; if the accusedhad been tried in the Sessions Court he would not have had the use of depositions before trial;

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Not new or worthy of consideration" : WA Corruption & Crime Commissioner confirms but dismisses Anne Azza Aly 's referring queries about PAVE, her work to Malaysia

If Damien Tudehope's COVID hotel quarantine fee statements are correct, SLHD revenue reported in financial statements signed by former CEO Teresa Anderson is overstated, and false

Strata managers' aversion to contact with tenants can leave strata managers exposed to personal liability