Kirubaharan a/l K. Ganesan & Anor v Pendakwa Raya

Court of Appeal · · Criminal Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Kirubaharan a/l K. Ganesan & Anor v Pendakwa Raya
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date3 November 2025
Date Uploaded13 November 2025
Legal TopicsCriminal Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s):

  • Kirubaharan A/L K. Ganesan
  • Sugendren A/L Selladorai

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

Bench
  • YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
  • YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
  • YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid
Facts & Background
  • The appellants were acquitted by the Magistrate's Court for an offence under Section 353 of the Penal Code, leading the Public Prosecutor (PP) to file a notice of appeal to the High Court.
  • The PP subsequently filed the petition of appeal within the prescribed 14-day period, but mistakenly lodged it with the High Court Registry instead of the Magistrate's Court Registry.
  • Upon realizing the error during case management, the PP refiled the petition at the correct registry and applied to the High Court for an extension of time to file the petition out of time, which the High Court allowed.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the High Court Judge erred in exercising discretion under Section 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to grant an extension of time for the Public Prosecutor to file the petition of appeal out of time.
  • Whether the Public Prosecutor's application for an extension of time was supported by sufficient grounds, including a bona fide explanation for the delay and the merits of the intended appeal.
  • The interpretation and application of "substantial justice" under Section 310 CPC, particularly in cases involving procedural non-compliance by the prosecution.
Decision
  • The Court of Appeal found that the Public Prosecutor's initial misfiling of the petition of appeal was a genuine and bona fide mistake, made within the prescribed time limit, despite being lodged at the wrong registry.
  • The Court held that the delay in refiling and subsequently applying for an extension of time was not excessive, and the omission in the Public Prosecutor's affidavit regarding the specific merits of the appeal was not fatal given the clear explanation for the procedural error.
  • Upholding the High Court's decision, the Court affirmed that the exercise of discretion under Section 310 CPC to achieve "substantial justice" extends to society at large, justifying the grant of extension to allow the prosecution's appeal to be heard on its merits.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!