Treating Statutes as ‘Sui Generis’ or ‘Pari Materia’ in Loh Kooi Choon  2 MLJ 187 (FCJ Raja Azlan Shah) against Tarmizi bin Yacob & Anor v Public Prosecutor and another appeal (ARIFIN ZAKARIA CJ (MALAYA), RICHARD MALANJUM CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK) AND JAMES FOONG FCJ) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS 05–37 OF 2004 (W) AND 05–38 OF 2004 (W) 27 July 2010
 2 MLJ 187
LOH KOOI CHOON v GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
FC KUALA LUMPUR
ALI, RAJA AZLAN SHAH AND WAN SULEIMAN FJJ
FEDERAL COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 157 OF 1975
7 June 1977
Constitutional Law — Fundamental liberties — Liberty of person — Amendment of Constitution with retrospective effect — Whether valid — Restrictive Residence Enactment (FMS Cap 39) — Federal Constitution, Articles 5, 7 and 159
In this case the appellant had been arrested and detained under a warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment. The appellant had not been produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest. He claimed damages but it was held that no action could be brought against the police officer as he was acting in compliance with a warrant issued by a competent authority. The appellant appealed but before the appeal was heard the Federal Constitution was amended by Act A354/76 which provided in effect that Article 5(4) of the Constitution shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence and that this amendment shall have effect from Merdeka Day. It was argued that the amendment was unconstitutional.
Parliament can alter the entrenched provisions of Article 5(4) to remove the provision relating to the production before a Magistrate of any arrested person under the Restricted Residence Enactment as long as the process of constitutional amendment as laid down in Article 159(3) is complied with. When that is done it becomes an integral part of the Constitution; it is the supreme law, and accordingly it cannot be said to be at variance with itself;
if Parliament retrospectively affects vested rights or pending proceedings, then it would be the duty of an appellate court to apply the law prevailing on the date of appeal before it. Subject to the constitutional limitation of Article 7 of the Constitution, to wit, protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials, Parliament would be within the ambit of its competence if it deems fit to legislate retrospectively.
In view of the demise of Ali F.J. the court asked both counsel for the parties under section 42 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 whether they consented to accept judgments by the remaining judges of the court, it being understood that if there was no majority opinion the proceedings should be re-heard. Both counsel consented.
Cases referred to
Vacher & Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors  AC 107 118
Henry v Geopresco International Ltd  2 All ER 702 718
Assa Singh v Mentri Besar, Johore  2 MLJ 30
IC Golak Nath & Ors v State of Punjab & Ors  2 SCR 762
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Dee v Union of India and State of Bihar  SCR 89
Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan  1 SCR 933
Kasavananda Bharati v State of Kerala  SCR Supp 1
Adegbenro v Akintola & Anor  3 All ER 544 551
Hinds v The Queen  2 WLR 366 373
In re Pulborough School Board, Bourke v Nutt  I QB 725 737
Barber v Pigden  1 KB 664 673
Letang v Cooper  2 All ER 929 933
Latikiro of Buganda v AG  3 All ER 849 851
1977 2 MLJ 187 at 188
Black Clanson v Papierwerke  1 All ER 810 815
Raja Abdul Aziz Addruse ( Dr Yaacob Hussain Merican with him) for the appellant.
Lim Beng Choon (Senior Federal Counsel) for the respondent.
RAJA AZLAN SHAH FJ
It is clear that the question at issue is fraught with political controversy. No doubt the appellant and other persons hold strong views one way or the other on the justice of the impugned Act. I should add that right now no feature of our system of government has caused so much discussion, received so much criticism, and been so frequently misunderstood, than the duties assigned to the courts and the functions which they discharge in guarding the Constitution. For that reason and also because it is rarely that this court is faced with a constitutional question of this kind it is desirable at the outset to make clear the functions of the courts.
The question whether the impugned Act is “harsh and unjust” is a question of policy to be debated and decided by Parliament, and therefore not meet for judicial determination. To sustain it would cut very deeply into the very being of Parliament. Our courts ought not to enter this political thicket, even in such a worthwhile cause as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, for as was said by Lord Macnaghten in Vacher & Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors  AC 107 118:
“Some people may think the policy of the Act unwise and even dangerous to the community. Some may think it at variance with principles which have long been held sacred. But a judicial tribunal has nothing to do with the policy of any Act which it may be called upon to interpret. That may be a matter for private judgment. The duty of the court, and its only duty, is to expound the language of the Act in accordance with the settled rules of construction. It is, I apprehend, as unwise as it is unprofitable to cavil at the policy of an Act of Parliament, or to pass a covert censure on the Legislature.”
It is the province of the courts to expound the law and “the law must be taken to be as laid down by the courts, however much their decisions may be criticised by writers of such great distinction”— per Roskill L.J. in Henry v Geopresco International Ltd  2 All ER 702 718. Those who find fault with the wisdom or expediency of the impugned Act, and with vexatious interference of fundamental rights, normally must address themselves to the legislature, and not the courts; they have their remedy at the ballot box.
The Constitution is not a mere collection of pious platitudes.It is the supreme law of the land embodying 3 basic concepts: One of them is that the individual has certain fundamental rights upon which not even the power of the State may encroach. The second is the distribution of sovereign power between the States and the Federation, that the 13 States shall exercise sovereign power in local matters and the nation in matters affecting the country at large. The third is that no single man or body shall exercise complete sovereign power, but that it shall be distributed among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, compendiously expressed in modem terms that we are a government of laws, not of men.
Clause (4) of Article 5 of the Constitution prescribes that a person arrested must be taken before a magistrate within 24 hours so that an independent authority exercising judicial powers may without delay apply its mind to his case. This safeguard is to a large extent covered by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code but its incorporation in the Constitution is deemed essential for assuring the minorities that their rights would be constitutionally guaranteed and that they shall not entertain any apprehension of the alleged despotism and arbitrariness of the majority and legislative omnipotence.This safeguard equally applies to any person arrested under the Restricted Residence Enactment (Cap. 39) (see Assa Singh v Mentri Besar, Johore  2 MLJ 30 “but evidently difficulties have arisen in the practical application of the enactment and hence the need for the amendment.” (see  2 MLJ xcii).
The question is how safe are the provisions in clause (4) of Article 5 from change. This question arose in a case which the Supreme Court in India in IC Golak Nath & Ors v State of Punjab & Ors  2 SCR 762 considered en banc. The same question had arisen twice before in India. On the first occasion in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India and State of Bihar  SCR 89 the Supreme Court considered the validity of the Constitution First Amendment Act in 1950. One of the arguments against the validity of the amendment was that the power of amendment granted by the Constitution to Parliament did not extend to the abridgment or removal of any of the fundamental rights because such a law would be hit by Article 13 and void. This argument was not accepted. On the second occasion in Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan  1 SCR 933 the Seventeenth Amendment was challenged but this argument, though faintly argued, was not accepted by three judges who constituted the majority. In Golak Nath, supra, another challenge to the same amendment was made and succeeded. By a bare majority of 6:5 it was held that the powers of amendment did not extend to the taking away and abridging of the fundamental rights on the basis that there was no distinction between the Constitution and ordinary law. An Indian writer [ Tripathi on ‘Amending The Constitution’. has aptly summarised theGolak Nath constitutional crisis as an intellectual crisis in reality. He said:
“It does not seem to be a rash hypothesis that if any one around there could successfully state the distinction between the constitution and ordinary law in clear juridical terms at least one judge would have deserted the company of the majority and the power of Parliament to amend the fundamental rights would not have remained eclipsed for six long years …”
Six years later the Supreme Court in Kasavananda Bharati v State of Kerala  SCR Supp 1 had no difficulty in overruling Golak Nath practically without any dissent.
Whatever may be said of other Constitutions, they are ultimately of little assistance to us because our Constitution now stands in its own right and it is in the end the wording of our Constitution itself that
1977 2 MLJ 187 at 189
is to be interpreted and applied, and this wording “can never be overridden by the extraneous principles of other Constitutions” — see Adegbenro v Akintola & Anor  3 All ER 544 551. Each country frames its constitution according to its genius and for the good of its own society. We look at other Constitutions to learn from their experiences, and from a desire to see how their progress and well-being is ensured by their fundamental law.
Counsel for the appellant before us urged that any amendment affecting the fundamentality of the Constitution should be avoided at all costs. According to him that part of the Constitution must not be touched.In my view, a distinction must be made between those parts of the Constitution which the framers thought should not suffer change and those that can be changed.
Our Constitution prescribes four different methods for amendment of the different provisions of the Constitution:
Some parts of the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament such as that required for the passing of any ordinary law. They are enumerated in clause (4) of Article 159. and are specifically excluded from the purview of Article 159;
The amending clause (5) of Article 159 which requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and the consent of the Conference of Rulers;
The amending clause (2) of Article 161E which is of special interest to East Malaysia and which requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and the consent of the Governor of the East Malaysian State in question;
The amending clause (3) of Article 159 which requires a majority of two-thirds in both Houses of Parliament.
(For a detailed study of the subject, reference may be made to Tun Suffian, Art Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, 2nd edition, Chapter 21).
It is therefore plain that the framers of our Constitution prudently realised that future context of things and experience would need a change in the Constitution, and they, accordingly, armed Parliament with “power of formal amendment”. They must be taken to have intended that, while the Constitution must be as solid and permanent as we can make it, there is no permanence in it. There should be a certain amount of flexibility so as to allow the country’s growth. In any event, they must be taken to have intended that it can be adapted to changing conditions, and that the power of amendment is an essential means of adaptation. A Constitution has to work not only in the environment in which it was drafted but also centuries later. “The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation or property in the generations which are to follow … It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated.” (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man).
As fundamental rights are not the same as ordinary rights, they can only be suspended or abridged in the special manner provided for it in the Constitution. In my opinion, the purpose of enacting a written Constitution is partly to entrench the most important constitutional provisions against repeal and amendment in any way other than by a specially prescribed procedure. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Hinds v The Queen  2 WLR 366 373took the view that constitutions based on the Westminster model, in particular the provisions dealing with fundamental rights, form part of the substantive law of the state and until amended by whatever special procedure is laid down in the constitution for this purpose, impose a fetter upon the exercise by the legislature of the plenitude of its legislative power. A passage from the speech of Lord Diplock who delivered the majority judgment is apposite (page 374):
“One final general observation: where, as in the instant case, a constitution on the Westminster model represents the final step in the attainment of full independence by the peoples of a former colony or protectorate, the constitution provides machinery whereby any of its provisions, whether relating to fundamental rights and freedoms or to the structure of government and the allocation to its various organs of legislative, executive or judicial powers, may be altered by those peoples through their elected representatives in the Parliament acting by specified majorities, which is generally all that is required, though exceptionally as respects some provisions the alteration may be subject also to confirmation by a direct vote of the majority of the peoples themselves. The purpose served by this machinery for ‘entrenchment’ is to ensure that those provisions which were regarded as important safeguards by the political parties in Jamaica, minority and majority alike, who took part in the negotiations which led up to the constitution, should not be altered without mature consideration by the Parliament and the consent of a larger proportion of its members than the bare majority required for ordinary laws. So in deciding whether any provisons of a law passed by the Parliament of Jamaica as an ordinary law are inconsistent with the Constitution of Jamaica, neither the courts of Jamaica nor their Lordships’ Board are concerned with the propriety or expediency of the law impugned. They are concerned solely with whether those provisions, however reasonable and expedient, are of such a character that they conflict with an entrenched provision of the Constitution and so can be validly passed only after the Constitution has been amended by the method laid down by it for altering that entrenched provision.”
The framers of our Constitution have incorporated fundamental rights in Part II thereof and made them inviolable by ordinary legislation. Unless there is a clear intention to the contrary, it is difficult to visualise that they also intended to make those rights inviolable by constitutional amendment. Had it been intended to save those rights from the operation of clause (3) of Article 159, it would have been perfectly easy to make that intention clear by adding a proviso to that effect. I am inclined to think that they must have had in mind what is of more frequent occurrence, that is, invasion of fundamental rights by the legislative and executive organs of the State by means of laws, rules and regulations made in exercise of legislative power and not the abridgment of such rights by amendment of the Constitution itself in exercise of the power of constitutional amendment. That power, though it has been entrusted to Parliament, has been so hedged about with restrictions that its exercise can only be made after”mature consideration by Parliament and the consent of a larger proportion of its members than the bare majority required for ordinary laws.”
1977 2 MLJ 187 at 190
There have also been strong arguments in support of a doctrine of implied restrictions on the power of constitutional amendment. A short answer to the fallacy of this doctrine is that it concedes to the court a more potent power of constitutional amendment through judicial legislation than the organ formally and clearly chosen by the Constitution for the exercise of the amending power.
I concede that Parliament can alter the entrenched provisions of clause (4) of Article 5, to wit, removing the provision relating to production before the magistrate of any arrested person under the Restricted Residence Enactment as long as the process of constitutional amendment as laid down in clause (3) of Article 159 is complied with. When that is done it becomes an integral part of the Constitution, it is the supreme law, and accordingly it cannot be said to be at variance with itself. A passage from the Privy Council judgment in Hinds v. The Queen, supra, is of some assistance (page 392):
“That the Parliament of Jamaica has power to create a court … is not open to doubt, but if any of the provisions doing so conflict with the Constitution in its present form, then it could only do so effectively if the Constitution was first amended so as to secure that there ceased to be any inconsistency between the provisions and the Constitution …”
This reasoning, in my view, is based on the premise that the Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself. It is the supreme law because it settles the norms of corporate behaviour and the principle of good government. This is so because the Federation of Malaya, and later, Malaysia, began with the acceptance of the Constitution by the nine Malay States and the former Settlements of Penang and Melaka, by the acceptance of it by Sabah and Sarawak that entered the Federation in 1963, as “the supreme law of the Federation … “(clause 1 of Article 4).It is thus the most vital working document which we created and possess. If it is urged that the Constitution is on the same level with ordinary law, then the Constitution is an absurd attempt on the part of the framers, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.In the context of clause (1) of Article 160, “law” must be taken to mean law made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not made in exercise of the power of constitutional amendment under clause (3) of Article 159, with the result that clause (1) of Article 4 does not affect amendments made under clause (3) of Article 159.
In conclusion, I hold that clause (4) of Article 5 is nothing but a constitutional protection which can be taken away or abridged only in the manner in which the Constitution provides. There is a world of difference between legislative immunity and a constitutional guarantee. The Constitution, by its very nature, creates the distinction. A constitutional guarantee cannot be wiped out by a simple legislative process as opposed to constitutional amendment.
Can an amendment of a clause in the Constitution operate with retrospective effect? It was strenuously contended for the appellant that a law which takes away vested right must be presumed to be intended not to operate retrospectively for the simple reason that subsequent change in the law would not prejudice such right. I accept this statement, for which authority is to be found in many cases. But my decision is based on the language of section 4 of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act A354) which reads:
“Provided that this Clause shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence, and all the provisions of this Clause shall be deemed to have been an integral part of this Article as from Merdeka Day.”
In so far as an Act of Parliament is concerned, the rule of construction is that in order to determine whether it is retrospective in its operation, the language of the Act itself must be looked into bearing in mind that an Act is not to be construed retrospectively unless it is clear that such was the intention of Parliament. If such was the intention that the Act was to be given retrospective effect even in respect of substantive right or pending proceeding, the courts have no alternative but to give effect to the Act even though the consequences might appear harsh and unjust.
The principle that parties are to be governed by the law in force on the date when an action is instituted and any subsequent amendment or alteration cannot affect vested right or pending proceeding, must always be read subject to the corollary that Parliament can always expressly provide that vested right or pending proceeding be affected by the amendment of the law.
If Parliament retrospectively affects vested right or pending proceeding, then it would be the duty of an appellate court to apply the law prevailing on the date of appeal before it. There is abundant authority for the proposition that an appellate court is entitled to take into consideration facts and events which have come into existence since the judgment under appeal was delivered: see In re Pulborough School Board, Bourke v Hutt  I QB 725 737 and Barber v Pigden  1 KB 664 673.
It cannot be gainsaid that Parliament is endowed with plenary powers of legislation and that it is within the ambit of its competence to legislate with prospective or retrospective effect. Retrospective legislation is one of the incidents of plenary legislative powers and as such is not required to be spelt out in the Constitution. Subject to the constitutional limitation of Article 7 of the Constitution, to wit, protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials, Parliament would be within the ambit of its competence if it deems fit to legislate retrospectively. There is no such restriction of legislative power with regard to restrictive residence. In the absence of any constitutional provision against retrospective legislation with regard to restrictive residence it is not right to argue that Parliament should apply such a restriction. “The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not any general principle outside it” — per Frankfurter J.
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
WAN SULEIMAN FJ
The appellant was the plaintiff in High Court K.L. Civil Suit No. 729 of 1973.
By a Summons-in-Chambers under Order 25 rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court the following points of law raised in the defence of the respondent/defendant came up for determination before the trial:—
1977 2 MLJ 187 at 191
whether the arrest of the plaintiff by the defendant, or its agents or servants on the 19th day of September, 1972 and subsequent detention of the plaintiff without him being produced before a magistrate within 24 hours is lawful by reason only of the validity of the warrant issued by the Minister of Home Affairs dated 13th day of September, 1972 under which the plaintiff was arrested, taking into account the provisions of section 32 of the Police Act No. 41 of 1967 and section 27 of the Prisons Ordinance No. 81 of 1952 and read with section 6 and/or section 39 of the Government Proceedings Ordinance, 1956; and
whether the plaintiff’s claim is bad in law by reason only of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to cite the servant and/or the agent of the defendant in his Statement of Claim.
The agreed facts of the case as set out in the judgment of the learned trial judge are as follows:—
On or about September 19, 1972, the Government of Malaysia by its servants or agents arrested the plaintiff under the authority of a Warrant of Arrest and Detention issued pursuant to the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment (F.M.S. Cap. 39) and thereafter detained the plaintiff at the Alor Star prison. On November 21 the same year, the plaintiff caused to be made to the High Court at Alor Star an application for an order that a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum be issued directing the commissioner of Prisons, Malaysia, to have the plaintiff’s body produced before the said court or, alternatively, for an order that the said Commissioner to show cause as to why the plaintiff should not be set at liberty. The documents pertaining to the said application were served on the said Commissioner of Prisons and on the Minister of Home Affairs on or about November 24, 1972. Before the application was set for hearing, i.e. on November 29, 1972, the plaintiff was released and allowed to return to his house at about 9.00 a.m. However, at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day, the plaintiff was re-arrested under a fresh Warrant of Arrest and Detention issued by the Minister of Home Affairs. The plaintiff accordingly claims damages against the defendant for wrongful imprisonment or detention from September 19 to November 29, 1972. He also claims for exemplary damages in respect of the second arrest and detention.
The learned trial judge held on the first issue, that since the omission on the part of the Police Officer and the Prison Officer in not producing the plaintiff before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest was an act in compliance with a warrant issued by a competent authority, they are protected from liability in tort by section 32(1) of the Police Act, 1967 and section 27 of the Prisons Ordinance, 1952. In consequence his Lordship held that no proceedings for damages against them personally can be maintained, so that the defendant in Civil Suit No. 729 of 1973 i.e. the Government of Malaysia is also protected from being sued by virtue of section 6(1) of the Government Proceedings Ordinance, 1956 read in conjunction with section 39 of the same Ordinance.
On the second issue his Lordship held for the reasons given in his judgment that the Statement of Claim was nor bad in law.
The appellant/plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of the application. The hearing before the learned judge was on October 17, 1975 and judgment delivered the following day.
In the memorandum of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant relied largely on the decision of this court in Assa Singh v Mentri Besctr Johore  2 MLJ 30. In that case this court held that though the Restricted Residence Enactment authorising the detention and/or the deprivation of liberty of movement of the subject did not have provisions similar to those in clauses (3) and (4) of Article 5 of the Constitution, this did not make it unconstitutional; and that despite such inconsistency with the Constitution, the Enactment was in force, but it must be applied with such adaptations as might be necessary to bring it into accord with the Constitution. It was also held that the provisions of clauses (3) and (4) of Article 5 of the Constitution should be read into the provisions of the Enactment.
The memorandum of appeal was filed on or about the 24th of June, 1976. However, with effect from August 27, 1976 Act A354/76 made the following amendment to Article 5(4) of the Constitution by adding this proviso to that clause:—
“Provided that this Clause shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence, and all the provisions of this Clause shall be deemed to have been an integral part of this Article as from Merdeka Day.”
The result of this amendment if valid would be to reverse with retrospective effect the decision in Assa Singh’s case.
Raja Abdul Aziz for the appellant submitted that the overall effect of the old Article 5 would have opened Government to a suit for wrongful imprisonment in this case, but the retrospective operation of the amendment if validly made would be to give Government complete protection.
The preliminary point therefore taken by learned counsel was — Is this amendment A354/76 constitutional? Raja Abdul Aziz’s submission is briefly this:
Under Article 159, the Constitution may be amended by federal law. A law passed to amend the Constitution is law within the meaning of the term “law” in Article 4 of the Constitution, that unlike the Indian Constitution, because of the manner in which the Indian Article 383 is worded, there is no distinction between a law passed under our Article 159 and a law passed under any other Article of our Constitution.
Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution reads:
“All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, (i.e. Part III ‘Fundamental Liberties’) shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”
Article 13(2) provides that any future law enacted by any authority in India which takes away or abridges
1977 2 MLJ 187 at 192
rights conferred by Part III and any provision thereof shall be void to the extent of such contravention.
The definition of law in Article 13(3), though it includes both the ordinary legislative power of Parliament and such other matters as customs and usages, does not include a law amending the Constitution which is placed on an independent footing under Article 368. (See Basu’s Commentary on the Constitution of India, 5th Ed. Vol. 1).
It has been held that the Indian Parliament is competent to make amendments in derogation of fundamental rights by an amending Act in conformity with the requirements of Article 368. (5) (See also Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala  SCR Supp 1).
In this country, Federal law, he points out, includes (under Article 160) any Act of Parliament. A law passed under Article 159 would have to follow the same legislative procedure as is prescribed in Article 66, like any other Act of Parliament, before it becomes Federal law.He arrives at the conclusion that the power under Article 159, though seemingly wide, is in truth non-existent since any law passed to amend the Constitution must inevitably be inconsistent with the Constitution, and must therefore because of Article 4, be void.
He then referred to three decisions: Letang v Cooper  2 SCR 762, Latikiro of Buganda v AG  SCR 89 and Black Clauson v Papierwerke  1 SCR 933 as aids to construction best summed up in the headnote to the last mentioned authority thus:
“Where there is an ambiguity in a statute the court may have regard to the report of a Committee presented to Parliament containing proposals to legislation which resulted in the amendment of the statute, in order to determine the ‘mischief’ which the statute was intended to remedy.”
Having thus laid the foundation, he then referred to various paragraphs of the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957, particularly paras. 161 and 162. The substance of his arguments, if I understand him aright, is that the Fundamental Rights provision constituted a guarantee and once having been so guaranteed, cannot be amended. Whilst conceding that these fundamental liberties are not absolute, he relies on the wording of Articles 7(1), 9(3) and 10 as support for the proposition that the power of Parliament to pass laws to restrict these freedoms must be circumscribed by or be subject to the provisos to be found in Part II only. For instance, Parliament could pass laws to punish the subject for acts or omissions, or to enhance punishment, but not retrospectively (Article 7(1)). The right of every citizen to move freely throughout the country and to reside in any part of it may be modified or be circumscribed by law only for the purposes set out in Articles 9(2) and 9(3). Again the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a), to assemble peaceably by Article 10(1)(b) and to form associations by Article 10(1)(c) can only be restricted by laws passed in accordance with clauses 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and (3) respectively.
Article 149 is relied upon as another buttress to his argument that the guarantees in Part II of the Constitution cannot be whittled away except under the stringent limitations imposed by the Constitution itself. Clause (1) thereof specifically permits such legislation against subversion to be passed “notwithstanding that it is inconsistent with any of the provisions, inter alia, of Articles 5, 9 or 10”; in other words, without specific provision on that behalf written into the Constitution, there can be no amendment made to Articles 5, 9 or 10 or the other Articles on Fundamental Liberties coming within Part II of the Constitution.
Whilst I would agree that the word “law” in Article 4 means all laws which Parliament is competent to pass, including federal laws passed to amend the Constitution, I fail to note any ambiguity when Articles 4 and 159 are read together.
Paragraph 80 of the Constitutional Commission Report, as one would expect, considered this important matter, and recommended that “the method of amending the Constitution should be neither so difficult as to produce frustration nor so easy as to weaken seriously the safeguards which the Constitution provides”. Article 159(3) provides that (except for the provisions of lesser importance set out in clause 4) all amendments require the support of the votes of not less than ⅔ of the total number of members in each House.
Not only was amendment by a special majority in both Houses recommended by the drafters of the Constitution. One should also look at another provision of the Constitution to see what happens when the special requirements of Article 159 have been satisfied. Like any other Bill, a Constitution amending Bill would become law (under Article 66(5)) on being assented to by the Yang Dipertuan Agung, and as Senior Federal Counsel rightly points out, thenceforth becomes part of the Constitution, becomes integrated therein. The situation therefore cannot arise where it can ever be said to be inconsistent with the Constitution.
A more intriguing point raised was that there can be by implication parts of the Constitution which cannot be subject to any form of amendment whatsoever. In taking this line of reasoning, Raja Abdul Aziz appeared to be advancing the majority decision in an Indian Supreme Court decision of Golaknath v State of Punjab  2 SCR 762 wherein 6 out of a special Bench of 11 judges had overruled previous decisions and taken the view that though there is no express exception from the ambit of Article 368, the Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Indian Constitution cannot, by its very nature be subject to the process of amendment provided for in Article 368, and that if any of such rights is to be amended, a new constituent Assembly must be convened for making a new Constitution or for radically changing it. (See Basu’s Commentary on the Constitution of India, 5th Edition, Vol. 5, page 495).
In the later decision of the Supreme Court Kesavananda v The State of Kerala  SCR Supp 1, it was held inter alia at page 4, by a majority:
The decision of the majority in Golaknath that the word “law” in Article 13(2) include amendments
1977 2 MLJ 187 at 193
to the Constitution and that the article operated as a limitation upon the power to amend the Constitution in Article 368 is erroneous and is over-ruled;
The power of amendment is plenary (full or complete). It includes within itself the power to add, alter or repeal the various articles of the Constitution, including those fundamental rights;
The power to amend does not include the power to alter the basic structure or frame-work of the Constitution so as to change its identity;
(Which on the face of it seems to be inconsistent with issue (iii): There are no inherent or implied limitations on the power of amendment under Article 368.
Only issues (i) and (ii) are relevant for the purposes of this appeal. I have referred to issues (iii) and (iv) because counsel for appellant has thought fit to broaden the scope of his arguments by reference to them.
It should be noted that the judges supporting the majority view are not the same in all four issues. That there should be such a diversity of views among the leading jurists in India show that what appears at first to be a straightforward matter of interpretation of the written word has become complicated by the doctrine of “basic structure or framework”, those parts of the Constitution which are regarded by proponents of this doctrine as being of special sanctity.
Thus Sikri C.J. was (at page 164) “driven to the conclusion that the expression ‘amendment of this Constitution’ in Article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the Preamble and the Constitution to carry out the objectives in the Preamble and the Directive Principles. Applied to fundamental rights, it would mean that while fundamental rights cannot be abrogated reasonable abridgements of fundamental rights can be effected in the public interest.” and at page 165 — “The true position is that every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided in the result the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution remains the same.” The basic structure, he said, consists of: (1) Supremacy of the Constitution; (2) Republican and Democratic form of Government; (3) Secular character of the Constitution; (4) separation of powers between the Legislature, the executive and the judiciary; and (5) Federal character of the Constitution.
The restriction upon the amending power of the Indian Parliament, according to this view arises from what is contained in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution.
Coming back to the issue before us, there is thus persuasive authority that whilst abrogation of the fundamental rights may not come within the ambit of our Article 159, reasonable abridgement of such rights are constitutional; that Parliament should decide when such amendment is necessary and it is not for this court to question the wisdom or need for such amendment.
I do not feel that the issue before this court would call for my view on whether there are indeed inherent or implied limitations to the power of amendment under Article 159, and must perforce confine myself to the issue before us viz. is the amendment to the fundamental right set out in Article 5 by Act A354/76 constitutional?Nor do I feel called upon to answer the broader issue of whether the power to amend includes the power to abrogate a fundamental right.
The power to amend would not, in this country, be restricted by anything set out in a Preamble for there is no Preamble to our Constitution. It seems to me to be clear that if there is to be any restriction to the right to amend any of the fundamental rights set out in Part II, such restriction would have been.set out in one of the various clauses of Article 159 itself.
Another point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is the constitutional validity of this retrospective amendment. Counsel concedes that this is not a criminal matter so that there is no question of violating Article 7. His reference to the Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 16A, page 90, on Retrospective Laws does not further his cause, for even in the U.S., in the absence of express provision in the U.S. Constitution, no law is invalid merely because it is retrospective in operation (see page 94, section 415).
Mr. Lim has drawn our attention to a passage in Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes, 6th Ed., page 862, where under the heading “Prospective and retrospective operation” the following excerpt is relevant:
“Constitutional provisions, like statutes, always operate prospectively and not retrospectively unless words used … clearly indicate that a retrospective intention is intended …
But an express intention that a constitution shall operate retrospectively will be enforced. Nor will a retrospective intention clearly manifest be avoided by consideration of inconvenience or hardship.”
The effect of this amendment to Article 5 is to deprive the appellant of the protection afforded to him by the ruling of this court in Assa Singh’s case, that he cannot sue for damages for what would otherwise be unlawful detention for the period ending November 29, 1972, since it is clear that this amendment is constitutionally valid.
This appeal in substance questions the validity of a law made by Parliament, in the words of Article 4(3) of the Constitution, “on the ground that it makes provision with respect to any matter with respect to which Parliament … has no power to make laws …” What Raja Abdul Aziz says amounts to this: Parliament cannot amend any of the Fundamental Liberties Articles beyond what is expressly permitted by Part II itself. I should therefore treat this appeal as a proceeding for a declaration such as is envisaged in Article 4(3) and I declare that the amendment to Article 5(4) by Act A354/76 is valid.
I would therefore dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.
Solicitors: Rithauddeen & Aziz.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS 05–37 OF 2004 AND 05–38 OF 2004
The appellants in both the appeals herein were convicted under s 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘DDA’) and sentenced to death. Their appeal to the Federal Court was against the dismissal of their respective appeals to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence. Initially both appellants were charged under s 39B(1)(a) of the DDA but at the end of the prosecution’s case the deputy public prosecutor amended the charge to one under s 39B(1)(c), to wit, that they, in furtherance of a common intention, carried out an act preparatory to or for the purpose of trafficking in 2,996.4g cannabis.
The prosecution’s narration of the events was that a chief inspector of police (PW10), posing as a drug buyer, was introduced by his informer (‘Mud’) to the second appellant to discuss the purchase of cannabis. At the appointed time and place for the sale and purchase to take place PW10 met with both appellants. While PW10 and the second appellant waited, the first appellant went to get the drugs and returned in about 20 minutes carrying a bag from which the first appellant took out and showed the cannabis to PW10. PW10 signalled the police party that lay in ambush observing the proceedings. The appellants fled on seeing the police approaching; the first appellant throwing away the bag he was carrying as he fled. Both appellants were apprehended by the police after a brief struggle. In calling for their defence the trial court found as a fact that both appellants had a common intention in acting together to ensure the sale of the cannabis and that they had knowledge of the drugs as inferred from their attempts to resist arrest and escape the police party and the act of the first appellant in throwing away the bag containing the drugs. Their defence failed to cast any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. In the Federal Court the appellants submitted that (i) the trial was a nullity because the public prosecutor had not consented to the charge being amended (ii) the prosecution ought to have called the informer ‘Mud’ to testify and/or offered him to the defence (iii) as the second appellant only negotiated the sale of the
cannabis with PW10 and was never in possession of the drugs he was not involved in trafficking and (iv) as the first appellant did not participate in the negotiations or in the preparatory act but only had custody and control of the cannabis he should be found guilty of only possession and not trafficking.The prosecution replied that (i) consent to the amended charge was superfluous as the prosecution was conducted by a deputy public prosecutor (ii) Mud was not an agent provocateur but only an informer whose identity was protected by s 40 of the DDA. Mud merely introduced the second appellant to PW10 and did nothing else and (iii) the appellants acted together, with a common intention, to sell the cannabis to PW10.
Held, dismissing the appeals and affirming the appellants’ conviction and sentence:
Consent of the public prosecutor to the amended charge was superfluous as the prosecution was conducted by the deputy public prosecutor in which case the consent of the public prosecutor was implicit in his actions and no further written consent of the public prosecutor was required:Garmaz s/o Pakhar & Anor v Public Prosecutor  3 SLR 701 followed. Public Prosecutor v Lee Chwee Kiok  1 MLJ 45 not followed (see paras 35 & 33).
There was no necessity for the evidence of Mud in the narrative of the prosecution’s case. It was not disputed that the only role Mud played was to introduce PW10 to the second appellant. Just because Mud was known to the second appellant did not make him an agent provocateur (see para 43).
In this case the trafficking was the sale of cannabis or the purchase of it by PW10. What transpired on the night of 5 April 1996 was the final chapter in the preparation of the trafficking of the drugs which constituted the supply and delivery of 3kg of the cannabis by the first appellant for the purpose of both the appellants jointly handing it over to PW10 in exchange for payment as earlier agreed. There was common intention to ensure the sale of the cannabis to PW10 (see paras 48 & 49).
To constitute actual delivery it was not necessary that the agreed price had to be paid upon or before the physical delivery of the drugs. Here, the transaction was completed when the appellants produced the cannabis to PW10 and were only waiting for payment (see para 50).
There was no misdirection in the evaluation of the evidence adduced or in the standard of proof applied by the trial judge in coming to his decision. Overwhelming evidence was adduced showing the roles played by the appellants to make the cannabis available to PW10 for purchase. The very act of each of them attempting to flee from the scene to avoid
arrest by the police was a clear indication both of them knew what they were dealing in with PW10 (see paras 51 & 52).
Perayu-perayu di dalam kedua-dua rayuan telah disabitkan di bawah s 39B(1)(c) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (‘ADB’) dan telah dihukum mati. Rayuan mereka kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan adalah terhadap penolakan rayuan mereka masing-masing kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman. Pada awalnya, kedua-dua perayu telah dituduh di bawah s 39B(1)(a) ADB tetapi pada akhir kes pihak pendakwaan timbalan pendakwa raya telah meminda tuduhan kepada satu yang tertakluk di bawah s 39B(1)(c), iaitu, bahawa mereka, sebagai lanjutan niat bersama, telah melakukan tindakan persediaan kepada atau bagi tujuan pengedaran 2,996.4g kanabis. Penceritaan kejadian pihak pendakwaan adalah bahawa ketua penyiasat polis (‘PW10′), menyamar sebagai pembeli dadah, telah diperkenalkan oleh pemberi maklumat (‘Mud’) kepada perayu kedua untuk berbincang tentang pembelian kanabis. Pada masa dan tempat yang ditetapkan bagi jual beli tersebut, PW10 bertemu dengan kedua-dua perayu. Sementara PW10 dan perayu kedua sedang menunggu, perayu pertama pergi mendapatkan dadah dan pulang selepas 20 minit membawa beg di mana perayu mengeluarkan dan menunjukkan kanabis kepada PW10. PW10 memberi isyarat kepada pihak polis yang sedang berselindung di dalam belukar dan memerhatikan prosiding tersebut. Perayu-perayu terus melarikan diri apabila melihat kedatangan polis; perayu pertama membuang beg yang dibawanya semasa dia melarikan diri. Kedua-dua perayu telah ditangkap oleh polis selepas pergelutan singkat. Dalam memanggil pembelaan mereka, mahkamah perbicaraan mendapati adalah fakta bahawa kedua-kedua perayu mempunyai niat bersama untuk bertindak bersesama untuk memastikan jualan kanabis dan bahawa mereka mempunyai pengetahuan tentang dadah tersebut melihatkan kepada percubaan mereka untuk mengelakkan diri daripada ditahan dan melarikan diri daripada pihak polis dan tindakan perayu pertama membuang beg yang mengandungi dadah tersebut. Pembelaan mereka gagal untuk meletakkan sebarang keraguan berpatutan ke atas kes pendakwaan.
Dalam Mahkamah Persekutuan, perayu-perayu berhujah bahawa (i) perbicaraan adalah terbatal oleh kerana pendakwa raya tidak memberi kebenaran terhadap tuduhan yang dipinda; (ii) pihak pendakwaan sepatutnya memanggil pemberi maklumat ‘Mud’ untuk memberi keterangan dan/atau menawarkannya kepada pembelaan; (iii) memandangkan perayu kedua hanya berunding tentang penjualan kanabis dengan PW10 dan tidak pernah dalam milikan dadah tersebut, dia tidak terbabit dalam pengedaran; dan (iv) memandangkan perayu pertama tidak terlibat dalam perundingan atau tindakan persediaan tetapi hanya mempunyai jagaan dan kawalan kanabis tersebut, dia patut didapati bersalah hanya untuk milikan dan bukan untuk pengedaran. Pihak pendakwaan membalas bahawa (i) kebenaran kepada tuduhan yang dipinda tidak diperlukan memandangkan pendakwaan telah
dilakukan oleh timbalan pendakwa raya (ii) Mud bukanlah ejen perangkap tetapi hanya pemberi maklumat yang mana identitinya dilindungi oleh s 40ADB. Mud sekadar memperkenalkan perayu kedua kepada PW10 dan tidak lebih dari itu; dan (iii) perayu-perayu bertindak bersama-sama, dengan niat bersama untuk menjual kanabis kepada PW10.
Diputuskan, menolak rayuan dan mengesahkan sabitan dan hukuman perayu-perayu:
Kebenaran pendakwa raya untuk tuduhan yang dipinda adalah tidak perlu memandangkan pendakwaan telah dilakukan oleh timbalan pendakwa raya di mana kebenaran pendakwa raya adalah tersirat daripada tindakannya dan kebenaran bertulis selanjutnya oleh pendakwa raya adalah tidak perlu: Garmaz s/o Pakhar & Anor v Public Prosecutor  3 SLR 701 diikut; Public Prosecutor v Lee Chwee Kiok  1 MLJ 45 tidak diikut (lihat perenggan 35 & 33).
Keterangan Mud adalah tidak perlu di dalam penceritaan kes pihak pendakwaan. Tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa peranan yang dimainkan oleh Mud hanyalah untuk memperkenalkan PW10 kepada perayu kedua. Hanya kerana Mud dikenali oleh perayu kedua tidak bermakna dia adalah ejen perangkap (lihat perenggan 43).
Dalam kes ini pengedaran tersebut adalah penjualan kanabis atau pembeliannya oleh PW10. Apa yang berlaku pada malam 5 April 1996 adalah bab terakhir dalam persediaan untuk pengedaran dadah yang mana membawa kepada bekalan dan penyerahan 3kg kanabis oleh perayu pertama bagi tujuan untuk diberikan kepada PW10 oleh kedua-dua perayu sebagai ganti untuk pembayaran yang dipersetujui sebelum itu. Terdapat niat bersama untuk memastikan penjualan kanabis kepada PW10(lihat perenggan 48 & 49).
Untuk membentuk penyerahan sebenar, adalah tidak perlu bahawa harga yang dipersetujui hendaklah dibayar apabila atau sebelum penyerahan fizikal dadah tersebut. Di sini, transaksi telah disempurnakan apabila perayu-perayu menyediakan kanabis kepada PW10 dan hanya menunggu untuk bayaran (lihat perenggan 50).
Tidak terdapat salah arah dalam penilaian keterangan yang dikemukakan atau standard pembuktian yang digunakan oleh hakim bicara dalam membuat keputusannya. Keterangan kukuh yang dikemukakan menunjukkan peranan yang dimainkan oleh perayu-perayu untuk menyediakan kanabis untuk pembelian oleh PW10. Tindakan setiap daripada mereka yang cuba untuk melarikan diri daripada tempat kejadian untuk mengelakkan diri daripada ditahan oleh polis adalah petunjuk yang jelas bahawa kedua-duanya tahu akan urusniaga mereka dengan PW10 (lihat perenggan 51 & 52).
For cases on consent of Public Prosecutor to prosecute, see 5(2) Mallal’s Digest (4th Ed, 2010 Reissue) paras 3093–3095.
Garmaz s/o Pakhar & Anor v PP  3 SLR 701, HC (refd)
Gnanasegaran a/l Pararajasingam v PP  3 MLJ 1, CA (refd)
Lee Lee Chong v PP  4 MLJ 697, CA (refd)
Pendakwa Raya v Mansor bin Mohd Rashid & Anor  3 MLJ 560, FC (refd)
PP v Lee Chwee Kiok  1 MLJ 45 (refd)
PP v Sa’ari Jusoh  2 CLJ 197, FC (refd)
Ti Chuee Hiang v PP  2 MLJ 433, SC (refd)
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ss 2, 39B(1)(a), (1)(c), 39B(2), 40A
Penal Code s 34
 There are two appeals before us heard together. In both the appeals the respective appellants were convicted and sentenced to death on the amended charge under s 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘the Act’) read with s 34 of the Penal Code and punishable under s 39B(2) of the Act by the High Court Kuala Lumpur on 5 August 1997. Their respective appeals to the Court of Appeal were dismissed on 2 December 2004. They now appeal to this court on 15 grounds of appeal.
 Initially both the appellants were charged under s 39B(1)(a) of the Act read with s 34 of the same Code and punishable under s 39B(2) of the Act. However, at the end of the case for the prosecution the learned deputy public prosecutor amended the charge to one of s 39B(1)(c) of the Act.
together as the appellants.
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 5 April 1996, lebih kurang 9.45 malam, di Jalan Raja Alang, Kampung Baru, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, dalam mencapai niat bersama, kamu telah di pihak kamu melakukan satu perbuatan persediaan untuk mengedar dadah berbahaya, iaitu 2996.4 gram cannabis, suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(c)Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (Disemak 1980) dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2)Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952.
 It is the case for the prosecution that on 4 April 1996 at around 5pm. Chief Inspector Amir Hamzah bin Hanudin (‘PW10′) from the Unit Risikan Jenayah Ibu Pejabat Bukit Aman, acting as a drug buyer, was introduced by his source a person known as Mud to Agam, the second appellant, an Indonesian, at the Restoran Hashimah Paya Jaras, Sungai Buluh.
 After Mud had introduced PW10 to the second appellant he asked Mud to leave. PW10 then began discussion with the second appellant. PW10 informed the second appellant that he wished to buy 10 kilo of drugs ‘ganja’ (‘cannabis’). The second appellant agreed to supply at the price of RM1,700 per kilo. PW10 did not agree on the price. Further negotiation took place on the price and it was finally agreed at RM1,600 per kilo. The second appellant then told PW10 that the cannabis was at Kampung Baru, Kuala Lumpur in the area of Jalan Raja Alang and could only be collected in the evening or at night.
 At about 7pm on the same evening the second appellant invited PW10 to come with him to Kampung Baru to collect the cannabis. PW10 drove his car, a red GTO Mitsubishi with registration No WDX 983. The second appellant sat on the passenger seat.
 On arrival at the place the second appellant went out for 15–20 minutes but only to come back to say that the cannabis was not yet available. The second appellant then told PW10 they were to return to Paya Jaras and on the way back the second appellant informed PW10 that the cannabis could not be obtained that evening as it was not safe to do so. The second appellant then said to PW10 that he could get someone to deliver the cannabis at Paya Jaras with an additional payment of RM300. PW10 disagreed and advised the second appellant that if there was any further development he was to call him on his
mobile phone. In reply the second appellant asked PW10 to come to Kampung Baru at the same location around 3pm the next day. At around 11.30am the next day PW10 went to the Operation Room of the Narcotics Department Task Force of the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters at Cheras to brief the members of the task force (‘the police’) on the pending transaction at Jalan Raja Alang Kampung Baru in which he would pose as a buyer of the cannabis.
that the police would focus on the agreed location;
that PW10 would used the same car; and
that the police would move to ambush only after PW10 had given the signal by opening the boot of his car.
 At around 7.50pm on 5 April 1996 the second appellant called PW10 on his mobile phone. The first four calls of the same number PW10 did not answer. It was only the fifth call that he answered and it was the second appellant.
 PW10 arrived at the designated location at about 9.10pm and knew that the police had also arrived due to the presence of one member in short pants near the public telephone booth. PW10 parked his car under a street light in order to have clear sight of what might happen.
 At about 9.20pm the second appellant arrived with another person introduced to PW10 as Tarmizi, the first appellant. PW10 asked both of them to enter his car. The first appellant was seated on the front passenger seat while the second appellant was at the back seat. The first appellant proceeded to inform PW10 that he only had 3kg of the cannabis. PW10 agreed to buy and the first appellant asked for payment.
therefore went out of the car walking to the rear of the car towards a corner not far from it. PW10 then asked the second appellant to come to the front seat. While waiting for the first appellant PW10 was informed by the second appellant that only 3kg could be obtained for the transaction but he would arrange again next time.
 After about 15–20 minutes the first appellant came back. PW10 asked the second appellant to come out with him and moved to the rear of the car. The three met at the rear of the car. The first appellant told PW10 he had the cannabis inside the bag he was carrying. The first appellant brought it in front of PW10 and the second appellant. From inside the bag the first appellant proceeded to take out a compact bundle wrapped with transparent plastics. PW10 smelt it, looked at it and pressed it before suspecting it was cannabis.
 The first appellant and second appellant asked PW10 to be quick. PW10 went to get the money inside the car but at the same time pulling the lever to open the boot to signal the police to act. At that time the cannabis was still with the first appellant. When PW10 was about to return to the rear of the car he saw the police heading for the first appellant and second appellant. PW10 went back into his car, turned on the engine and sped off.
 The transaction between PW10 and the appellants were witnessed by Chief Inspector Fisol (‘PW5′) who led the police that night and Det Cpl Rosdi (‘PW8′). They were about 10–15 meters away from the car of PW10. They identified the first appellant as a tall, well-built man wearing a red short–sleeve T–shirt and dark jeans while the second appellant was wearing a white T–shirt and dark pants.
 When the signal to act came on PW5 and PW8 ran to apprehend the first appellant and second appellant respectively. However after a struggle with PW5 the first appellant managed to free himself and threw away the bag he was carrying before running away. PW5 did not pursue him but stayed back to watch over the bag thrown by the first appellant. It was Inspector Zambri who made another attempt to apprehend the first appellant. He too failed. He was injured when he was pushed and fell down. The first appellant was then pursued by Det Cpl Khalid (‘PW7′) who managed to arrest him after firing two shots at him and injuring his right leg. Several members of the police also came to assist PW7. The second appellant also tried to escape but was caught by PW8 with the help of Det Sjn Abdullah.
 After the arrest of the first appellant and second appellant PW5 examined the content of the bag in their presence. PW5 found three compressed slabs suspected to be cannabis. PW6, the chemist, (Cheong Meow Kioon) did the analysis of the three slabs seized by the police. In his evidence PW6 said that he was given three compressed slabs of plant material wrapped with plastic sheet and secured with adhesive tape. He found the nett weight of each slab to be 1,018.4g, 991.4g and 986.6g respectively and giving the total weight of 2,996.4g. And after he had carried out the essential analysis on the three slabs by way of several established and accepted tests he found all the plant material of the three slabs to be cannabis as defined in s 2 of the Act.
 At the end of the case for the prosecution and after giving the maximum evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned High Court judge called for the defence of both the first appellant and second appellant. In doing so he made several findings of fact related to the issues raised by learned counsel for the first appellant and second appellant, inter alia:
that the first appellant and second appellant were identified by PW10 and corroborated by PW5, PW7 and PW8. In addition both the first appellant and second appellant were arrested at the scene of the event;
that the identification of the first appellant and second appellant was possible that night since the views of the prosecution’s witnesses who observed the event were not hampered. There were street lights and building lights in the vicinity;
that PW6 concluded that the three slabs he analysed were cannabis as defined in s 2 of the Act;
that the first appellant and second appellant had the common intention since they acted together in the preparation for the sale of the cannabis; and
that the first appellant and second appellant had knowledge of the cannabis. The acts of the first appellant in struggling with the police to resist arrest, throwing the bag containing the cannabis and running away indicated such knowledge. And so was the second appellant who also struggled with the police in an attempt to escape.
 The learned trial High Court judge did not think that the failure by the Prosecution to tender as evidence the Police Report Dang Wangi No 7049/96 had jeopardised the prosecution’s case as he opined it was not a first information report. And neither did the learned trial High Court judge find any break in the chain of evidence adduced by the prosecution. The evidence of PW10 was also held to be admissible under s 40A of the Act.
 In his unsworn statement the first appellant said that he happened to be at the scene of the event when he heard shouts of ‘Polis, polis, polis’. As he was an illegal immigrant and feared of being apprehended he ran off. In the process he dropped his watch and while looking for it he heard a gun shot and felt pain on his right thigh. He fainted.
that the first appellant did not deny that he was at the scene of the event that night;
that there was no reason why the police would go for the first appellant if indeed there were other people in the vicinity at that time. Further it was illogical for the first appellant to say that he ran away as he was an illegal immigrant yet gave his watch a priority when he stopped to look for it at the risk of being arrested; and
that there was nothing in the statement of the first appellant to contradict the evidence of the prosecution that at that time he was carrying a bag containing the cannabis and which he threw away when the police wanted to arrest him.
 The second appellant also made an unsworn statement from the dock. He said that on 4 April 1996 he did meet Mud with another person introduced to him as Abang Jo at the restaurant in Paya Jaras. While at the restaurant Mud and Abang Jo agreed to meet at Jalan Raja Alang the next day. The second appellant went on to say that he met Mud on 5 April 1996 at Jalan Raja Alang. Mud told him that there was a man in a car who asked him to go in. The second appellant said that he followed but did not enter the car. Then suddenly he heard gun shots and the shouts of ‘Polis, polis’. He was subsequently arrested.
the second appellant did not deny that he was at the scene of the event that night;
the second appellant did not say who was the man inside the car;
the second appellant did not deny that he struggled with the police; and
there was no reason or even suggested reason why the police would arrest the second appellant.
that preparatory act for the purpose of trafficking drugs consists of several continuing acts;
that the evidence of the chemist (‘PW6′) was credible. There was no necessity for him to show in detail what he did in his laboratory; and
that the consent of the public prosecutor was implied in this case since the prosecution was conducted by a deputy public prosecutor.
 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial of his clients was a nullity in view of the absence of consent to the amended charge preferred against them at the close of the case for the prosecution. He cited the case of Public Prosecutor v Lee Chwee Kiok  1 MLJ 45. In that case the original charge was under s 39B(1)(a) of the Act but on the day of trial the learned deputy public prosecutor amended it to s 39A(1)(c) of the same Act. Harun J (as he then was) said this at p 1:
It will be observed that although the original and amended charges are two distinct offences, they are both created by the same section of the law viz s 39B(1) and both carry the same penalty. Both require the consent of the public prosecutor under s 39B(3). The learned deputy public prosecutor argued that the amendment was technical and as the public prosecutor had given his consent on the original charge he was at liberty to amend the charges in the manner he did. I do not think so. It was held in Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor  MLJ 231 that a consent to prosecute ‘is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side’. The public prosecutor has clearly exercised his mind in respect of the original charge when he gave his consent to prosecute some four months after the alleged offence. It was incumbent on him however to exercise the same degree of deliberation in respect of the amended charge. He has not done so … The facts of the case were fully before the public prosecutor at the time of giving his consent and he could have elected to proceed on the amended charge then. He did not do so. It would appear therefore that the public prosecutor
 In his response the learned deputy submitted to us that consent would be superfluous in this case as the prosecution was conducted by a deputy public prosecutor. In its judgment the Court of Appeal held the same view.
 We agree with the view of the Court of Appeal and the submission of the learned deputy. The law was concisely and correctly summarised by Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) in Garmaz s/o Pakhar & Anor v Public Prosecutor  3 SLR 701 when he said this at p 720:
The settled Malaysian position has been to consider a deputy public prosecutor as being capable of exercising all the rights and powers of the public prosecutor … It follows from this proposition that where prosecution is conducted by a DPP, the consent of the public prosecutor is implicit in his actions and no further written consent of the public prosecutor is required. Indeed, this was the holding of the Privy Council inPublic Prosecutor v Oie Hee Koi  1 MLJ 148. The ruling in Public Prosecutor v Oie Hee Koi  1 MLJ 148 was followed inPerumal v Public Prosecutor  2 MLJ 265, Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Halipah  1 MLJ 155, Public Prosecutor v Datuk Haji Dzulkifli  1 MLJ 340 and Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hock  2 MLJ 219.
It is to be noted that in the above case the prosecution was conducted before the High Court by a deputy public prosecutor who under the Criminal Procedure Code is vested with all the powers of the public prosecutor. On the authority of this case, it is clear that where the prosecution is conducted by a deputy public prosecutor the consent of the public prosecutor is implicit in his action and no written consent of the public prosecutor is required.
 Next, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned judges of the Court of Appeal ‘erred and misdirected themselves in law and in fact in not holding that the informer (Mud) ought to have been called by the prosecution to unfold the narrative of the Prosecution’s case and/or offered him to the defence’. Learned counsel contended that PW10 was introduced by Mud to the second appellant and thus Mud must have been known to the second appellant. He cited the case of Ti Chuee Hiang v Public Prosecutor  2 MLJ 433 to support his contention.
 Learned deputy replied that Mud was only an informer hence his identity was protected by s 40 of the Act. He pointed out that Mud merely introduced the second appellant to PW10 and did nothing else. As such he was an Informer and not an agent provocateur. The learned deputy went on to say that Mud did less than the informer in Pendakwa Raya v Mansor bin Mohd Rashid & Anor  3 MLJ 560 yet the Federal Court in that case ruled that the informer was not an agent provocateur when it said this at p 578:
In Munusamy v Public Prosecutor  1 MLJ 492 (SC), Mohd Azmi SCJ (now FCJ) in delivering the judgment of the court, opined (at p 494) that ‘whether a person is an informer or has become an active agent provocateur would depend on the facts of each particular case’. In our instant case under appeal though Cholar introduced PW9 to the second respondent and was present when both transactions involving cannabis were struck, there was no evidence that he had done anything apart from being present. It appears obvious that his presence during the negotiation process and the transactions was merely to lend credence to PW9′s intention to purchase the cannabis in the minds of the respondents.
On the particular facts and circumstances of the instant case under appeal, we are of the view that Cholar was not an agent provocateur. But even if he was, there is more than sufficient credible evidence of the respondents’ involvement in the negotiation and agreement to sell to PW9 the 902g of cannabis subsequently brought out by the second respondent from room ‘K’ in the said house.
 In its judgment the Court of Appeal held that the role of Mud in this case was merely to introduce the second appellant to PW10 unlike the informer in Ti Chuee Hiang v Public Prosecutor who played an active role as an agent provocateur to arrange for the accused to meet the police and subsequently for his arrest.
 We have perused the whole evidence adduced. We are of the view that there was no necessity for the evidence of Mud in the narrative of the prosecution’s case. In fact it was not disputed that the only role of Mud was to introduce PW10 to the second appellant. Just because Mud was known to the second appellant did not make him an agent provocateur. We therefore agree with the view of the Court of Appeal that the role of Mud could not be compared to that of the informer in Ti Chuee Hiang v Public Prosecutor ‘who had enticed the appellant to walk into a deliberate trap, which had been planned and organised by PPP Noorhashim and executed by a team of six police officers led by K/Inspector Mohd Amin bin Abd Raof (‘PW3′) who was then attached to Cawangan Anti Dadah, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur, on the date and at the time and place referred to in the charge’.
 Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the second appellant only did the negotiation with PW10 and he was not in possession of the cannabis. As such there was no question of him involved in the trafficking of the cannabis.
 In respect of the first appellant’s learned counsel argued that he did not participate in the negotiation or in the preparatory act. He only had the custody and control of the cannabis. As such the presumption of possession applied and thus he should only be guilty of possession and not for trafficking. The case of Public Prosecutor v Sa’ari Jusoh  2 CLJ 197 was cited in support.
 In response the learned deputy submitted that the appellants were charged with common intention for the offence. And that the evidence adduced must be considered as a whole including the overwhelming evidence that the appellants acted together to effect the sale of the cannabis to PW10.
 On this issue the Court of Appeal held that the preparatory act for the purpose of trafficking drugs covers a number of continuing acts. It begins from an agreement until the successful handing over of the drugs to another party. The acts in between carried out to achieve the purpose included such acts as getting the supply, wrapping, sending and meeting between the parties. In this case the trafficking was the sale of cannabis or the purchase of it by PW10. And what transpired on the night of 5 April 1996 along Jalan Raja Alang was the final chapter in the preparation of the trafficking of the drugs which
constituted the supply and delivery of 3kg of the cannabis by the first appellant for the purpose of the first appellant and second appellant jointly handing it over to PW10 in exchange for the payment as earlier agreed. The appellants were charged with common intention to ensure the sale of the cannabis to PW10. And such sale was proved by direct evidence without relying on any of the statutory presumptions in the Act. We are therefore in entire agreement with the view of the Court of Appeal in finding that the contention of learned counsel for the appellants has no merit.
 On the issue of delivery it is now a settled law that to constitute actual delivery it is not necessary that the agreed price must be paid upon or before the physical delivery of the drugs (see Wan Mazuki bin Wan Abdullah v Public Prosecutor Criminal Appeal No 05–56 of 2008 (T). As such the decision in Public Prosecutor v Sa’ari Jusoh should not be narrowly construed. And in this case the transaction was in fact completed since the appellants had produced the cannabis to PW10 and were only waiting for the payment when the police moved in to apprehend them.
 In respect of the complaint that there was misdirection in the evaluation of the evidence adduced and the standard of proof applied by the learned trial High Court judge before coming to his decision, we agree with the Court of Appeal that there was no such misdirection shown or apparent.
 While in essence the basic defence of the appellants was one of mere denial, there were overwhelming evidence adduced indicating the roles played by the first appellant and second appellant in order to make the cannabis available for PW10 to purchase. Indeed the very act of each of them in attempting to flee from the scene and avoiding arrest by the police was one clear indication that both knew what they were dealing in with PW10 (see Lee Lee Chong v Public Prosecutor  4 MLJ 697).
 As learned counsel for the appellants did not pursue the other grounds of appeal we need not have to deal with them. At any rate we are not persuaded that any of them could have made the difference to our conclusion.
 The respective appeals of the first appellant and second appellant are therefore dismissed. We affirmed their respective convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
IN PARI MATERIA
IN PARI MATERIA. Upon the same matter or subject. Statutes in pari materia are to be construed together. are to be construed together.
[Latin, Of the same matter; on the same subject.] The phrase used in connection with two laws relating to the same subject matter that must be analyzed with each other.
For example, the federal gift tax provisions supplement the federal estate tax provisions. The two are in pari materia and must be read together because the gift tax provisions were enacted to prevent the avoidance of estate taxes.
(sū’ī’ jĕn’ər-ĭs, sū’ē)
Being the only example of its kind; unique: “sui generis works like Mary Chesnut’s Civil War diary”(Linda Orr).
|Adj.||1.||sui generis– constituting a class of its own; unique; “a history book sui generis”; “sui generis works like Mary Chestnut’s Civil War diary”
single – existing alone or consisting of one entity or part or aspect or individual; “upon the hill stood a single tower”; “had but a single thought which was to escape”; “a single survivor”; “a single serving”; “a single lens”; “a single thickness”