this is the scheme answer as prepared and discussed as in the lecture with Sir Abdul Rahman, lecturer of AIKOL, IIUM.

1. Tutorial 8
(CHANGE OF MAGISTRATE)
1. Explainthe importance of the followingcase:
Case: PP v Kulasingam (SituationwhereMagistrate appointedasDPP)
- the accusedwas chargedfor an offence undersection409of the Penal Code. The President
of the SessionsCourtwhooriginallytriedthe case wastransferredtobe a DeputyPublic
Prosecutor. The succeedingPresidentmade anorderfor the case to be triedde novo.
Whenthe case came upfor continuationbeforeanotherPresidentthe learnedDeputy
PublicProsecutorsuggestedthatthe case be continuedundersection261 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Defence counsel objected. The mattercame before the HighCourtfor
revision.
- it washeldthatit wouldbe properforthe Magistrate whoisappointed asFederal Counsel
or DPP to complete anypartheardcases originallybyhiminthe court where he was
previouslystationedsubjecttoan overriddingconditionthatthere mustnotbe any possible
miscarriage of justice orany contraventionof the rulesof natural justice
- explainsthe rational of Sect261 whichis to preventarehearinginwhichcase wouldresult
inunnecessaryhardshiporunreasonableexpenditure subjecttothe guarantee thatthe
accusedmay demandanywitnessestobe summonedorreheard.
- On revision,the judge said that a magistrate who is transferred to be a federal counsel or
deputypublic prosecutormay complete any part-heard casesoriginallyheard by him
providedthat there is no miscarriage of justice.
- In thiscase,the presidentwasappointedasadeputypublicprosecutorinthe same state
and itwouldnotbe inthe interestof justice thathe shouldcontinue tohearthe case.
- However, HashimYeopSani J, heldthatinsteadof trial de novo,the trial was orderedtobe
continuedasthe prosecutionhadcloseditscase,a large numberof witnesseshadbeen
calledandexhibitsproduced,andaprimafacie case hadbeenestablished.

2. - HashimYeopA. Sani J (ashe thenwas) had thisto say:
“Section261 of the Criminal Procedure Code providesthatwheneveranymagistrate after
havingheardand recordedthe whole oranypart of the evidence inatrial ceasestoexercise
jurisdictionthereinand issucceededbyanothermagistrate whohasandwhoexercisessuch
jurisdiction,the magistrate sosucceedingmayacton the evidence sorecordedbyhis
predecessor,orpartlyrecordedbyhispredecessorandpartlyrecordedbyhimself. The purpose
of thissectionistopreventa re-hearingincertaincaseswhere are-hearingwill resultin
unnecessaryhardshiporinjustice orunreasonableexpenditure subjectalwaystothe guarantee
as providedinproviso(a) thatthe accusedmay demandanywitnessestobe re-summonedor
re-heard.The presentcase isa case in pointhavingregardto the large numberof witnesses
alreadycalledandgivenevidence andthe large numberof exhibitsalreadytendered. The
difficultyinthiscase isonlythata findingof guilthad alreadybeenmade bythe original
Presidentandhe hadalsoproceededtorecordthe evidence of the firstdefence witness;butthis
difficultyisnotinsurmountable. Section325 of the Criminal ProcedureCode allowsthe High
Court initsdiscretiontoexercise anyof the powersconferredbysection316of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The orderof the original Presidentonthe findingof guiltisinmyview an
“order” withinthe meaningof section316(c). Inthe exercise of myrevisionarypowersIorder
that the trial of thiscase be continuedunderthe provisionof section261of the Criminal
Procedure Code onthe followingterms. Toenable thatjustice maybe hadthe orderof calling
for the defence made on20th September,1972 issetaside;the record of evidence of first
defence witnessbe expungedfromthe records,andthe ordersof “trial de novo”made on 21st
September,1973 and 29th January,1974 are setaside.”
Case: MohamedIdrisv Rex
- The appellantwaschargedfortheft.
- The appellantwasemployedasa clerkbythe Singapore HarbourBoard. A detective saw
himcarrying variousarticles,includingabottle of gin,a lady’shand-bag,twotinscontaining
cake andfour tubesof tooth-paste. The evidence showedthatitwouldbe withinthe scope
of hisdutiestocollectthingsof thatkind,if he foundthemlyingabout,andplace themin
propercustody.
- The whole questionof whetherthe appellantwasguiltyof stealingthe goodsinquestion
dependedonthe inference the court coulddraw fromthe circumstancesinwhichthe

3. detective foundthe appellantcarrying,whetherthe appellanthadconcealedthemonhis
person,orwhetherhe hadput variousarticlesinside hisshirt.
- The Magistrate whohad begunthe hearingof the case leftand anotherMagistrate
continuedthe hearing. The questionwaswhetherthe new Magistrate shouldexercisethe
powersgivenundersection254of the StraitsSettlementCriminal Procedure Code (whichis
inpari materiawithsection261 of our Code) andact on the evidence recordedbyhis
predecessor?
- The newMagistrate decidedtoact onevidence recordedbyhispredecessor.
- On appeal a newtrial wasorderedbythe High Court. In hisjudgmentMurray-AynsleyC.J.
opined:
“… The power givenunder the sectionis ofvalue, particularlywhenit is used for
evidence of a more or less formal character, or where the witnesscannot be
produced.In the present case the witness whose evidence wasso acted on was a
crucial one, and I cannotthink that a decisioncan be regarded as satisfactory
where it isbased on evidence givenbefore another Magistrate,particularlywhen
there isnothingto prevent the witnessfrom givingevidence onthe further
hearing.”
Case: MohdAminBin Abdullahv PP
Case: Oh Keng Sengv PP
- the applicantwasaccusedof utteringseditiouswordsundersection4(1)(b) of the Sedition
Act 1948 and chargedinTHE SessionCourt
- Whenthe case came upfor furtherhearing, the Presidentof the SessionsCourthadalready
beenpostedtoKedahas a deputypublicprosecutorandbefore anyevidencewasrecorded
on that daylearnedcounsel forthe applicant objectedtothe saidPresidentof the Sessions
Court hearingthe case any further,buthisobjectionwasoverruled.
- The applicantmovedthe HighCourt foran order thatthe saidPresidentof the Sessions
Court be precludedfromcontinuingthe hearingof the case anda furtherorderthatthe case
be heard de novoby the succeedingPresident.
- Amongthe reasonsgivenbythe applicantto supporthisapplicationwasthat:

4.  he mightnot geta fairtrial if the case was continuedbythe saidPresidentof the
SessionsCourt.
 the transferof the saidPresidentof the SessionsCourttothe postof deputypublic
prosecutorwasin effectanabrogationof hispreviouspostasPresidentof the
SessionsCourt.
 there wasa real likelihoodof the saidPresidentof the SessionsCourtbeingbiased
and that itwouldbe contrary to publicpolicyandnatural justice if the saidPresident
of the SessionsCourtpresideover thatmatter as that wouldimpose onhimthe
dual role of prosecutoraswell asthe presidingofficerof the same courtat one and
the same time.
 it would be prejudicial toafair trial.
- Situationwhere Magistrate appointedasDPP
- disagreedwith decisionin Kulasingam’scase.
- The court heldthat uponthe transferof a Magistrate on hisappointmentasaDPP, he
relinquisheshispowersasjudge therebyceasestoapplyanyjurisdictioninatrial whichhe
has partlyheard.In sucha case the trial shouldbe “de novo”.
- Before the endof prosecution’scase,the presidentfor the SessionCourt in Serembanwas
transferredto be a deputypublicprosecutor in Alor Setar but the presidentcontinuedto
hear the case
- On revisionby the court, Ajaib SinghJ refusedto followthe principle laiddown in
Kulasingam’scase and ordered a trial de novo by president
- Inits judgmentthe HighCourtmade the followingobservation:
“The provisioninsection261of the Criminal Procedure Code whichempowersthe
succeedingmagistrate orpresidenttoact onthe evidencerecordedbyhis
predecessorisno doubtintendedto save time and money andto expedite the
disposal ofpart-heardcriminal cases. This provision howevershouldbeexercised
with caution. It mustbe appreciatedthatthe succeedingmagistrate orpresident
whoacts on the evidence of witnesseswhomhe hasnotheardand seenisobviously
at some disadvantage particularlyinrespectof the demeanourandcredibilityof
those witnesses. There istherefore areal riskthat evidencenotwhollyrecordedby
a magistrate or president, butwhichisactedonby himmaymateriallyprejudice an
accusedpersonwhere adecisioninvolvingthe credibilityof awitnessisbasedon
that evidence. The provisionhowevermaygenerallybe exercisedwherethe

5. evidence tobe actedonis more or lessformal or islargelyuncontroversial and
where the credibilityof anymaterial witnessisnotinvolved...”
- The applicantischarged withutteringseditiouswords. Bythe verynature of the charge the
credibilityof witnessesisboundtobe of paramountimportance andI donot thinkthat this
isa propercase where the presentpresidentof the SessionsCourtmaycontinue fromwhere
it wasleftbyhispredecessorandact on the evidence alreadyrecorded.
- Furthermore, all the 13 prosecutionwitnessesare readilyavailable togive evidence. The
hearingbythe previouspresidentlastedonlysix daysand Ido not thinkthata new trial will
resultinmuch lossof time andexpense.”
Case: PP V GohChooi Guan
- The SessionsCourtJudge of Sg Petani wastransferredtoKLas a SeniorFederal Counsel and
appliedtocontinue withapart-heardcase.
- Whenhe appearedinthe same court for the continuationof the trial,the defence counsel
objectedonthe groundthat he had beenappointedasSFC.
- SyedAgil BarakbahSCJheldthat the interpretationof the phrase “ceasestoexercise
jurisdictiontherein” inSect261 CPC to meanwhenthe Magistrate dies,retiresorresigns
and will notbe able tocontinue tohear part heardcase.
- However,aMagistrate or presidenttransferred toanotherplace holdingthe same postdoes
not fall underthissectionashe isgazettedandcan part-heardcases.
- If the Magistrate or Presidentistransferredtothe postof SeniorFederal CounselorDPP,he
still hasjurisdictionunlesshe isdegazetted
- Moreover,inthe interestof public,Magistrate orPresidentistransferredtobe a DPPshould
not continue tohearpart-heardcasesas he may be seento be partial(biased) eventhough
he is not.
- He maybe disqualifiedfromhearingthe case onlyonthe groundof publicpolicy
 i.e bias,prejudice orincontraventionof the rulesof natural justice.
- However,inthiscase,the Presidentwastransferredtothe postof SFC inthe ministrywhich
isdifferentfromthatof a DPP.Thus, the court ordereda continuationof hearing.
- In respectof SFCattached inministries,nolikelihoodof offendingthe principleof natural
justice.He maycontinue withpartheard.
Case: ChelliahvPP

6. - Sect 261 (a): where theMagistratecontinueswith the trial the accused may demand thatthe
witnessesor anyoneof thembere-summoned and re-heard.
- The word demandunderproviso(a) makesitobligatoryforthe Magistrate torecall
witnessesif the accusedasksforthem.Thisleavesnodiscretiontothe Magistrate to act
uponevidence partlyrecordedbyhispredecessororby himself.
- It was heldthat if a trial de novo is selected,thenthe accused may demand that any
witnessbe re-summonedand re-heardand the magistrate must comply
2. What is the correct practice for a succeedingMagistrate to apply before he continueswith
the trial?
- Section261 of CPC providesthatwheneveranymagistrate afterhavingheardandrecorded
the whole and or any part of the evidence inatrial ceasestoexercise jurisdictiontherein
and issucceededbyanothermagistrate,the magistrate sosucceedingmay:
 Act on the evidence sorecordedbyhis predecessor
 Act on the evidence partlyrecordedbyhispredecessorandpartlyrecordedby
himself;or
 Resummonsthe witnessesandrecommence the trial (trial de novo)
- The provisoto S.261 providesthatinanytrial,the accused may,whenthe secondmagistrate
commenceshisproceedingdemandthatanyof the witnessesbe re-summonedandre-
heard.
- Besides,the HighCourtmaysetaside any convictionmade onevidence notwhollyrecorded
by Magistrate before whomconvictionwashad,if HCopinedthatthe accused has been
materiallyprejudiced.Thus,HCmayorderfor a new trial.
3. What is the consequence ifthe Magistrate appliesincorrect procedure?
4. What is the meaningof De Novo and Part Heard?
- De Novo

7.  Resummonsthe witnessesandrecommence the trial
- Part heard
 Act on the evidence sorecordedbyhispredecessor
 Act on the evidence partlyrecordedbyhispredecessorandpartlyrecordedby
himself
5. What are factors to be consideredbefore the case is De Novo?