Question 3

Section 51 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) states that the court may issue a
summons to order the person who possessed such property or document which the
court considers to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation and
requiring him to attend and produce it. PP or the accused may apply for this and may
apply when the production of the property or ocument is necessary or desirable for
investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under CPC.

Section 51(2) of the CPC explains the person who is required to produce the
document or thing is deemed to have complied with it if he produces it without the
need to attend personally to produce it while section 51(3) of the CPC explains that
the summons or written order to produce does not apply to any postal article, telegram
or other document in the custody of the postal or telegraph authorities.

The issue of uncertainties is resolved in the case of PP v Raymond Chia Kim Chwee.
In the application under section 51 of the CPC, the court must consider the justice of
the case and at what stage of proceedings the application is made. In application
before trial commences, if a particular document is specified in the charge, the
prosecution must allow the accused to inspect the document to enable him to prepare
for his defence. In application during trial, if the prosecution tenders a document
which is relevant, then the accused is entitled a copy of it. A general application for
unspecified documents should not be entertained.

Next, whether the production of document is necessary or desirable for the purposes
of the trial? This may referred to the case of Teoh Choon Teck v PP. Before issuing a
summons, the Court must consider whether the production of the documents is
necessary or relevant for the purpose of the trial. The documents must be related or
connected to the subject matter, or is capable to guide the proceeding to supply link in
the chain of evidence. The documents must be clearly specified or indicate the
documents to be produced.
The case of Datuk Tiah Thee Kian v PP is an exception case under this matter. As a
general rule, if application was made before trial, the documents that can be produced
are those referred to in the charge. However, the court held that even if the documents
were not referred, as long as the documents are specified by the applicant in his
application, court has the power to make such order. The Supreme Court merely
disallow an application for documents that are not specified. What has laid down in
the case of PP v Raymond Chia Kim Chwee is only a general rule. There can be
exceptions where the accused is entitled to documents not specified in the charge. It is
largely depends on the relevancy of such document to the charge.

Beside, for the delivery of certain documents, section 51A(1)(a) of the CPC explains
that before the trial, the prosecution shall deliver to accused mandatory firstly, a copy
of FIR under section 107 of the CPC. In the case of Husdi v PP, the accused has a
right to a certified copy of FIR so as to be informed of the grounds of his arrest under
article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution (FC).

Secondly, a copy of document which would be tendered as part of evidence for

prosecution. In the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, it was held that section 51A(1)(b)
of the CPC only refers to document. DNA samples are not included. The worksheets
of the chemist in respect of DNA samples are not included as it would not be tendered
as evidence in court. Section 51A of the CPC clearly specified that the prosecution is
only required to supply the documents that are expressly stipulated and thus the law
on the application of section 51 of the CPC had not changed. Section 51A of the CPC
provides on automatic disclosure while section 51 of the CPC is where court has the
discretion to order the production of documents. The case of PP v Raymond Chia Kim
Chwee is still relevant and applicable where the documents were not specifically
mentioned in section 51A of CPC.

Thirdly, a written statement of facts favourable to defence of accused which signed

under the hand of PP or any person conducting the prosecution under section
51A(1)(c). The exception of section will be section 51A(2) of the CPC which means
the prosecution does not have the supply if it is contrary to public interest. Section
51A(3) of the CPC also explains a document shall not be inadmissible merely because
of non-compliance with section 51A(1) of the CPC. The document may still be
admissible even if section 51A(1) of the CPC was not complied.

Question 4(a)

Whether Teguh can obtain an order to inspect and take copies of those documents of
his offence on the applicable criminal procedure?

The applicable criminal procedure to enable him to obtain an order to Inspect and take
copies can be seen pursuant to s. 51 CPC. Under s.51(1) CPC an accused person has a
right to apply to the court for a summons for production of document

According to section 51(1) of the CPC, court may issue a summons to order the
person who possessed such property or document which the court considers to be
necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation and requiring him to attend
and produce it.

Section 51(2) of the CPC explains that the person who is required to produce the
document or thing is deemed to have complied with it if he produces it without the
need to attend personally to produce it. Here, Teguh could be the person under the
meaning of section 51 of the CPC.

In the case of PP v Raymond Chia Kim Chwee, the court held that the accused may
apply for prosecution to produce the documents while in the case of PP v Kamal
Hisham bin Jaafar, the court held that the prosecution may also apply for production
from the accused.
In the case of Teoh Choon Teck v PP, the court held that before issuing a summons,
the court must consider whether the production of the documents is necessary or
relevant for the purpose of the trial. The documents must be related or connected to
the subject matter, or is capable to guide the proceeding to supply link in the chain of
evidence. The documents must be clearly specified or indicate the documents to be
produced.

Before the trial, can only produce documents that were referred in the charge. The
case of Raymond Chia Kim Chwee v PP states that except for the documents referred
in the charge, section 51 of the CPC can only be applicable after the trial has been
commenced. Where the application is made before trial, the documents which
Accused may inspect are those specified or referred to in the charge. During trial, the
test is whether the documents are relevant. In the case of Raymond Chia Kim Chwee
v PP, it was held that where an application is made during trial, the rule of relevancy
must be strictly enforced. The documents asked for must be relevant to the case.

If Teguh could satisfy the court, the application may be granted. Pursuant to section
51A CPC, Teguh is advised that section 51A makes it mandatory to the prosecution to
supply any document or report which will form part of the prosecution case to the
accused before the commencement of trial. Following section 51A(1)(a) CPC, the
prosecution will have to deliver any document which would be tendered as part of the
evidence of the prosecution. Section 51A(1)(b) provides that the prosecution to
deliver any documents which would be tendered as part of the evidence of the
prosecution. Section 51A (1)(c) also provides that the prosecution to provide a written
statement of facts favorable to the defense unless it is contrary to public interest
section 51(2) CPC. In the event, the documents requested is not within section 51A,
Teguh is advised to apply pursuant to section 51 CPC summon to produce documents.

In conclusion, Teguh is advised that in order to succeed in his application he will need
to satisfy the court that the documents requested is necessary and desirable. The
courts in Raymond Chia defined this as important at the time it appears relevant to the
proceedings.

Question 4(b)

Whether Teguh was justified under the law to apply for a copy of a document
examiner’s report prepared pertaining to the signature on the said documents? For the
delivery of certain documents, section 51A(1)(a) of the CPC explains that before the
trial, the prosecution shall deliver to accused mandatory firstly, a copy of FIR under
section 107 of the CPC. In the case of Husdi v PP, the accused has a right to a
certified copy of FIR so as to be informed of the grounds of his arrest under article
5(3) of the Federal Constitution (FC).

Secondly, a copy of document which would be tendered as part of evidence for

prosecution. In the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, it was held that section 51A(1)(b)
of the CPC only refers to document. DNA samples are not included. The worksheets
of the chemist in respect of DNA samples are not included as it would not be tendered
as evidence in court. Section 51A of the CPC clearly specified that the prosecution is
only required to supply the documents that are expressly stipulated and thus the law
on the application of section 51 of the CPC had not changed. Section 51A of the CPC
provides on automatic disclosure while section 51 of the CPC is where court has the
discretion to order the production of documents. The case of PP v Raymond Chia Kim
Chwee is still relevant and applicable where the documents were not specifically
mentioned in section 51A of CPC.

Thirdly, a written statement of facts favourable to defence of accused which signed

under the hand of PP or any person conducting the prosecution under section
51A(1)(c). The exception of section will be section 51A(2) of the CPC which means
the prosecution does not have the supply if it is contrary to public interest. Section
51A(3) of the CPC also explains a document shall not be inadmissible merely because
of non-compliance with section 51A(1) of the CPC. The document may still be
admissible even if section 51A(1) of the CPC was not complied.
In the event the prosecution wants to admit the expert report and not call the maker.
The prosecution must give the report to the defense 10 days before the
commencement of the trial to the accused. If the accused person wants the maker of
that document to be present the accused must give a 3 day notice in writing before the
commencement of trial. This can be seen pursuant to section 399 CPC.