POLICE INVESTIGATION PART 1

• S.107 (FIRST INFORMATION REPORT)

• S.107A (REPORT ON STATUS INVESTIGATION)
• S.108 (PROCEDURE IN NSO)
• 108A. ADMISSION OF CERTIFIED COPY OF INFORMATION AS EVIDENCE
• 109. INVESTIGATION IN SEIZABLE CASES
• 110. PROCEDURE WHERE SEIZABLE OFFENCE SUSPECTED
• 111. POLICE OFFICER’S POWER TO REQUIRE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES
• 112. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES BY POLICE
• 113. ADMISSION OF STATEMENTS IN EVIDENCE
• 114. NO DISCOURAGEMENT FROM MAKING STATEMENT TO POLICE
 FIRST INFORMATION REPORT-S.107 CPC
• (1)EVERY INFORMATION RELATING TO THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE, IF
GIVEN ORALLY TO AN OFFICER IN CHARGE OF A POLICE STATION, SHALL BE
REDUCED TO WRITING BY HIM OR UNDER HIS DIRECTION AND BE READ OVER
TO THE INFORMANT.
• (2)EVERY SUCH INFORMATION SHALL BE ENTERED IN A BOOK TO BE KEPT BY
THAT OFFICER, WHO SHALL APPEND TO SUCH ENTRY THE DATE AND HOUR ON
WHICH THAT INFORMATION WAS GIVEN, AND WHETHER GIVEN IN WRITING
OR REDUCED TO WRITING AS AFORESAID SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE PERSON
GIVING IT.
• 3)
• (A)NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION (1), INFORMATION GIVEN BY A PERSON RELATING
TO THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE TO A POLICE OFFICER, WHO AT THE TIME OF
RECEIVING THE INFORMATION IS NOT IN A POLICE STATION, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
RECEIVED AT A POLICE STATION.
• (B)A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING SUCH INFORMATION UNDER PARAGRAPH (A) WHERE
PRACTICABLE SHALL RECORD OR CAUSE TO BE RECORDED THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF
THE INFORMANT, THE DATE AND TIME OF THE RECEIPT OF SUCH INFORMATION, AND
SHALL CONVEY SUCH INFORMATION TO AN OFFICER IN CHARGE OF A POLICE STATION
OR ANY POLICE OFFICER WHOSE DUTY IS TO RECEIVE SUCH INFORMATION.
• (C)SUCH INFORMATION SHALL BE REDUCED TO WRITING AND ENTERED IN A BOOK IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (2) AND SHALL SUBSEQUENTLY BE SIGNED BY
THE PERSON WHO GAVE THE INFORMATION.
• (4)A POLICE OFFICER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND TO RECEIVE ANY INFORMATION IN RELATION TO
ANY OFFENCE COMMITTED ANYWHERE IN MALAYSIA
 WHAT IS FIR

• CHOW KAM MENG V PP(2001) 1 MLJ 386

• PURPOSE OF FIR- PP V PARDEEP SINGH(1993) 3 SLR 116
• A FIR SERVES AS A COMPLAINT SETTING THE CRIMINAL LAW IN MOTION [BALACHANDRAN V PP [2005] 1 AMR
321; [2005] 1 CLJ 85].
• IN PATHMANABHAN A/L NALLIANNEN V PP (AND 3 OTHER APPEALS) [2017] 3 AMR 105; [2017] 3 MLJ 141, FC,
THE FEDERAL COURT HELD THAT THE PHRASE “FIRST INFORMATION REPORT” IS COMMONLY USED IN
RELATION TO INFORMATION GIVEN UNDER THE CPC, S 107(1) RELATING TO THE COMMISSION OF AN
OFFENCE FOR WHICH A PERSON IS CHARGED.
• THE FIR NEED NOT CONTAIN THE ENTIRE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION [PP V PARDEEP SINGH[1999] 3 SLR
116; TAN PIN SENG V PP [1998] 1 SLR 418]. THE RECEIPT AND RECORDING OF THE FIR BY THE POLICE IS NOT
A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SET IN MOTION A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
• IN EMPEROR V KHWAJA NAZIR AHMADAIR 1945 PC 18, IT WAS HELD:
“IN TRUTH THE PROVISIONS AS TO AN INFORMATION REPORT (COMMONLY CALLED A FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT) ARE ENACTED FOR OTHER REASONS. ITS OBJECT IS TO OBTAIN EARLY INFORMATION OF ALLEGED
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, TO RECORD THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE THERE IS TIME FOR THEM TO BE FORGOTTEN OR
EMBELLISHED, AND IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THE REPORT CAN BE PUT IN EVIDENCE WHEN THE
INFORMANT IS EXAMINED IF IT IS DESIRED TO DO SO.”
•
 FIR IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
• IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LIMITATIONS, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS MUST BE TREATED
AS “PUBLIC DOCUMENTS” [LOO FANG SIANG V KETUA POLIS DAERAH,
BUTTERWORTH [1981] 2 MLJ 272].
• HO CAN LODGE A FIR?
IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT AN EYEWITNESS ALONE CAN LODGE A FIR [SARVANA @ KD
SARVANA V STATE OF KARNATAKA (2012) 7 SCC 636].
SINCE THE OBJECT OF THE CPC, S 107 IS MERELY TO ACTIVATE THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION OF
THE POLICE, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PERSON WHO MAKES A REPORT CANNOT HIMSELF
BE CHARGED, IF THE INVESTIGATION REVEALS THAT AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY HIM
[PP V DATO SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM (NO 3) [1999] 2 AMR 2017; [1999] 2 MLJ 1].
 FIR IS NOT A SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE
• HOWEVER IMPORTANT A DOCUMENT A FIR IS, IT CAN NEVER BE TREATED AS A PIECE OF
SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE AND THE FACT THAT NO FIR WAS MADE IS NOT IN ITSELF A GROUND
FOR THROWING OUT A CASE. IN BALACHANDRAN V PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85, FC, THE FEDERAL
COURT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF A FIR. THE COURT HELD THAT IT CAN BE USED
TO CONTRADICT THE MAKER OF THE REPORT UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT 1950, S 145 OR IT
CAN BE USED TO CORROBORATE THE MAKER UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT 1950, S 157 IN
COURT.
• IN TIMHAR JIMDANI ONG & ANOR V PP [2010] 3 CLJ 938, CA, THE COURT OF APPEAL HELD
THAT THE POLICE REPORT LODGED BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER WAS MERELY A BRIEF
ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED IN THE HOTEL ROOM. IT WAS A FORMAL PROCEDURE
UNDERTAKEN BY THE POLICE FOLLOWING THE ARREST. IT WAS A FIR TO FACILITATE FURTHER
INVESTIGATIONS.
 DELETION OF NAME/PARTICULAR IN FIR

• THE OMISSION OF THE ACCUSED’S NAME IN THE POLICE REPORT MADE BY THE WITNESS DOES
NOT IN ANY WAY DETRACT FROM THE WEIGHT AND VALUE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE
TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT HIMSELF [CHINAKARAPAN V PP[1962] MLJ 360, CA; HER
CHUN SINGH & ORS V PP [1969] 2 MLJ 209, FC].
• IF AN INFORMANT FAILS TO INCLUDE MATERIAL PARTICULARS IN HIS REPORT,
WHICH HE WAS EXPECTED TO DO SO, HIS INCLUSIONS OF THESE
PARTICULARS LATER IN HIS TESTIMONY MAY BE EMBELLISHMENTS [PP V
CHONG NYUK MIN & ANOR [1995] 3 MLJ 642].
 FIR MERELY ACTING AS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

• A POLICE REPORT IS NOT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE, BUT IT CAN BE USED TO

CORROBORATE OR CONTRADICT THE INFORMANT’S EVIDENCE IN COURT. THE
COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY IN THE COURT BELOW IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS
PAROLE EVIDENCE, BUT A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF WHAT SHE FAILED TO PUT IN
THE REPORT. THE WORDS “TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS” WERE ONLY A ROUGH
DESCRIPTION OF HER PHYSICAL AND MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME.
TNG TIEN CHAI LWN PENDAKWA RAYA [1995] 2 AMR 1297
 DELAY IN LODGING A FIR
• DELAY IN LODGING A FIR IS NOT A BASIS TO FIND THE COMPLAINANT UNCREDIBLE
[DATO SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM V PENDAKWA RAYA AND ANOTHER
APPEAL [2015] 2 AMR 185].
• THE MERE DELAY IN THE FILING OF A FIR IS NO GROUND TO DOUBT THE CASE OF
THE PROSECUTION AND FOR THE EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE VICTIM TO BE
REJECTED [MOHD FAIRUS BIN MUSLIM V PP [2014] 6 AMR 342, HC].
• IN PP V MOHAMMAD TERANG BIN AMIT [1999] 1 MLJ 154, THE HIGH COURT HELD
THAT THE MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE POLICE REPORTS
LODGED BY THE COMPLAINANTS MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT LODGED AT
THE FIRST REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. THE MAGISTRATE FAILED TO CONSIDER
THAT THE COMPLAINANTS WERE ALL SCHOOL-GOING CHILDREN WHO RESIDED AT
THE HOSTEL WHERE THEY STUDIED.
 ABSENCE OF A FIR
• N PP V FOONG CHEE CHEONG [1970] 1 MLJ 97, IT WAS HELD THAT THE FACT
THAT NO FIR WAS MADE WAS NOT ITSELF A GROUND FOR THROWING OUT THE
CASE.
• IN OOI HOCK SIONG V R [1955] MLJ 229, IT WAS HELD THAT THE OMISSION OF A
FIR IS NOT PER SE FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE.
• THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE FIR HAS BEEN HELD TO HAVE DEPRIVED THE
ACCUSED OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIS ACCUSER AND IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRESUMPTION UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT 1950,
S 114(G) MUST BE RAISED THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE UNFAVOURABLE TO
THE PROSECUTION CASE [CHIN KHING SIONG V R [1952] MLJ 74]. THIS
RATIONALE WAS FOLLOWED BY SMITH J IN TEO THIN CHAN & ANOR V PP [1957]
MLJ 184.
 ACCUSED’S RIGHT TO FIR
• IN ANTHONY GOMEZ V KETUA POLIS DAERAH KUANTAN [1977] 2 MLJ 24, THE APPLICANT
WAS CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION UNDER THE PENAL CODE, S 506. THE
APPLICANT THROUGH HIS COUNSEL MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE OCPD OF KUANTAN TO
BE SUPPLIED WITH A COPY OF THE FIR, WHICH WAS LODGED BY THE COMPLAINANT. THIS
APPLICATION WAS REFUSED AND FURTHER APPLICATION TO THE PAHANG LEGAL ADVISOR
ENCOUNTERED THE SAME FATE. AN APPLICATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED IN THE HIGH
COURT FOR AN ORDER THAT THE OCPD SUPPLY A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE FIR TO THE
ACCUSED. THE HIGH COURT REFUSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL
COURT, SUFFIAN LP HELD:
• IN OUR JUDGMENT THE APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT TO INSPECT THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT AND THEREFORE THE OCPD SHOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY.
THE APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT TO INSPECT THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT UNDER THE
COMMON LAW BECAUSE OF HIS INTEREST IN IT. HUSDI V PP [1979] 2 MLJ 304 FOLLOWED, PP
V MOHAMED MUSA AMARULLAH [2002] 1 CLJ 366; LOO FANG SIANG V KETUA POLIS
DAERAH, BUTTERWORTH [1981] 2 MLJ 272.
REPORTS WHICH DO NOT AMOUNT TO A FIR

• KANG HO SOH V PP [1992] 1 MLJ 360, IT WAS HELD THAT AN ARREST REPORT IS
NOT A FIR AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE CPC, S 108A (SEE
BELOW).
• IN PENDAKWA RAYA V ISMAIL ATAN [1992] 2 CLJ 1253, IT WAS HELD THAT
STATEMENTS MADE AND RECORDED AFTER INVESTIGATION, BE THEY IN THE FORM
OF A POLICE REPORT OR OTHERWISE, DO NOT QUALIFY AS A FIR, BUT ARE MORE
OF AN INVESTIGATION STATEMENT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ADMITTED UNDER
S 108A.
• WHERE A REPORT IS MADE BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM ANOTHER
POLICE OFFICER, IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A FIR [BALACHANDRAN V PP [2005] 1
CLJ 85, FC].
 REDUCING INTO WRITING

• IT SHOULD OF COURSE BE RECORDED AT THE FIRST EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY

AND SO LONG AS THE REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING MORE THAN
THE FIRST INFORMATION AND CERTAINLY NOTHING GATHERED IN THE COURSE
OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION [TAN CHENG KOOI & ANOR V PP [1972] 2 MLJ
115].
 • WITHDRAWAL OF A FIR
• IN PP V ZALILI BT MUSTAPHA [2010] 1 MLJ 666, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHENEVER A
COMPLAINANT INDICATES TO THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE NO LONGER WISHES TO PURSUE
THE MATTER, IT IS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT TO WITHDRAW THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED. THE COURT HAS NO
POWER TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR BY GRANTING AN ORDER OF DISCHARGE NOT AMOUNTING TO AN ACQUITTAL.
• GANESAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM V PP [2016] 9 MLJ 1, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT IS
SETTLED LAW THAT THE POWER OF THE PROSECUTION WILL ALWAYS LIE WITH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR. ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT THERE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING
THE TRIAL OR PROCEEDING, THE COURT WOULD NOT USURP THE POWER OF THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR AND DISCHARGE THE APPELLANT AMOUNTING TO AN ACQUITTAL (“DNA”). NOR
IS THE COMPLAINANT VESTED WITH SUCH POWER, AS THE POWER TO DISCONTINUE WILL
ALWAYS LIE WITH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND NO ONE ELSE. SIMILARLY,
• IN ROZITA BINTI MOHD ALI [2018] 3 AMR 843, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE FACT THAT
THE COMPLAINANT WITHDREW HER POLICE REPORT AND DID NOT WISH TO PURSUE IT, DID
NOT ATTRACT THE INVOCATION OF THE CPC, S 294(1). IT IS SOLELY THE PREROGATIVE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INSTITUTE OR DECLINE A PROSECUTION UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, ART 145(3)..
• THANK YOU