July 20 Hearing Of Macc Appeal To Reinstate Remand Of 6 Cops

---

The Court of Appeal has set July 20 to hear MACC’s appeal to restore the remand order against six police officers as part of a graft investigation.
Lawyer Geethan Ram Vincent, who is a lawyer for three of the police officers, confirmed that the appellate court fixed the hearing date during case management of the matter two days back.
The MACC is appealing against the decision of the High Court in Temerloh which quashed the remand order on grounds that the anti-graft watchdog wrongly relied on the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) for the demand when it should have instead used the MACC Act 2009.
On that date, the media reported judicial commissioner Roslan Mat Nor as ruling that Section 49 of the MACC Act empowers MACC to carry out its investigations through the remand of the six suspects.
He said MACC officers cannot utilise CPC for the remand of suspects when the MACC Act took effect.
“MACC officers can make an arrest under Section 49(2) of the MACC Act and can ask for a remand order under Section 49(3) of the same act,” he said.
In exercising his revisionary power, Roslan quashed the remand order issued by the Magistrate’s Court in Temerloh against the six police officers on May 6.
The MACC was probing the six suspects, who included a police inspector, over alleged soliciting and receiving bribes of RM50,000.
The media previously reported that the six police officers were arrested on May 5 when they turned up to have their statements recorded at the MACC office in Temerloh.
The lower court then issued the remand order under Section 117 of the CPC, which allows suspects to be remanded for up to 14 days to assist in the investigation by the authorities.
However, Section 49 of the MACC Act permits bail to be posted for a suspect so that he or she can be free while still needing to report to the antigraft watchdog’s office every day.
Revisionary power
Having read media reports on the six officers' remand by the lower court, the High Court judicial commissioner had exercised his revisionary power to look into the validity of the remand order.
In his 43-page grounds of judgment, Roslan noted that only when the suspect fails to attend a summon by MACC or cooperate with it should the agency then turn to the courts via Section 49 to seek a remand order.
The judicial commissioner noted that as the arrest was made under Section 49 of the MACC Act, the agency’s officers must rely on that provision and not on any other law such as the CPC.
He pointed out that the lower court should not utilise Section 117 of the CPC for cases that fall under the MACC Act.
Roslan stressed that utilisation of the wrong law violates a person’s fundamental right to personal liberty and right to life per Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
Deputy public prosecutor Noorhisham Mohd Jaafar acted for the prosecution in the appeal before the Court of Appeal. - Mkini

---