kOTA kINABALU: The Court of
Appeal on Thursday reinstated the Magistrate's Court's order to release all the
items seized from a businessman who was reportedly proclaimed the 33rd Sultan
of Sulu.
Justices Datuk Syed Ahmad
Helmy Syed Ahmad, Mah Weng Kwai and High Court Judge Datuk David Wong
unanimously allowed Datu Mohd Akjan Ali Muhd's appeal and set aside the order
of the High Court.
The High Court had, on March
20 this year, set aside the order of the magistrate, ruling that the magistrate
was wrong in ordering an unconditional release of the seized items to Akjan.
The Magistrate's Court had,
on Dec 16, 2011, made an order to release all the 33 items unconditionally to
Akjan, who had filed the application.
The items were seized when
Akjan was detained on May 15, 2011 and remanded for seven days to facilitate
police investigation on him being proclaimed Sulu Sultan in a private ceremony
in Kg Likas in February the same year and for an alleged offence under Section
130C of the Penal Code for committing terrorism acts. He was released later
without condition on May 22 the same year.
In Thursday's proceedings,
counsel PJ Perira, who represented Akjan, appealed for the High Court's
decision to be set aside and to reinstate the magistrate's order that all
articles/items seized on May 15, 2011 be released to Akjan without any
conditions.
Perira told the court that
the High Court judge had erred in law when he said that under Section 413 of
the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)m it is not mandatory for police to report to
the magistrate any such property seized from such person for the purpose of
disposal.
He submitted that under
Section 413, the seizure or finding by any police officer of property taken or
alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances which
create suspicion of the commission of any offence shall be immediately reported
to a magistrate who will then make an order as she/he thinks fit in respect of
the said property.
Perira said it had been
almost one year and five months since the police seized the items after the
appellant was released and no charges have been preferred against him.
"Under Section 120 of
the CPC, investigation papers are to be submitted to the DPP's office within
one week of the expiry of the period of three months from the date of the first
infirmation report.
"The police did not
report the seizure of items from the appellant on May 15, 2011 to the
magistrate in accordance with Section 413 of the CPC.
If there is no report made
by the police to the magistrate, then the seizure and detention of the
articles/items are unlawful.
"Further, the appellant
lost the contacts of his clients and business information stored in items
seized (handphones and iPad) by the police and incurred loss in millions of
ringgit worth of business contracts," Perira said. (DE)
No comments:
Post a Comment