17 different brands seized. How many charges awaits the suspect?
Roslan was caught in possession of unregistered traditional medicine. On the eventful day, there were 17 different brands seized from him. He was later charged under the Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1984. It is a law which regulates the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics.
The question here is, can Roslan be slapped with 17 charges for each item seized, instead of only one charge for the whole 17 items seized?
The issue raised is pertaining to the possible number of charges that Roslan might be facing for possessing 17 different types of unregistered traditional medicine.
The power to prosecute lies within the discretionary power of the Public Prosecutor (Art. 145 FC and Sec. 376 CPC). The number of charges are to be determined and decided by the Public Prosecutor. The discretion must be applied according to the law and admissible evidence before him.
In view of the fact that the item seized consist of 17 different items. Roslan may be facing 17 different charges altogether as the offence is pertaining to having in his possession unregistered medicine for each item held by Roslan.
However such discretion should be applied with wise and wisdom. No matter how industrious the prosecution might be, discretion may be tainted with unnecessary consideration if not careful.
Treatment as to the suspects/accused persons is not to be motivated by a “trial by media” or fear of public remarks. It must be remembered that Roslan’s items were seized in a single raid.
We would like to refer to the advice forwarded by Justice Hamid Sultan in HOSSAIN v. PP [2008] 7 CLJ 569 paragraph 10 :
[10] Despite my directions, the respondent has failed in this case to address the court on the core issue relating to fines. To me as a judge, I see patent injustice in the conduct of the prosecution for having charged the accused for 5 charges relating to one offence. Such policies by the chambers must be reconsidered and stopped for better administration of criminal justice. Even the learned sessions judge had come to a conclusion that “the charges were duplication of each other and all were committed in the same transaction”. We must not only be a country having strong foundation in religious principles and values but also be seen to practice core value of justice within the spirit and intent of the Federal Constitution and Rukun Negara.
In conclusion, it is not illegal for Roslan to be prosecuted with 17 charges for each items. Yet the prosecution is still has the discretion to determine the number of charges against Roslan which includes instituting only one charge for all item seized.
Prepared by :
Ali
Partner
The Law Chambers of Fazaly Ali