Maya binti Ahmad Fuaad v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Maya Binti Ahmad Fuad

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was charged in the Magistrates' Court with making a false statement on oath under section 181 of the Penal Code, and claimed trial before the first magistrate.
• During the trial, the first magistrate was transferred to a ministry post before the defence's cross-examination of two witnesses had concluded; he later returned to complete hearing certain applications and cross-examination before the prosecution closed its case and the appellant was called to enter her defence.
• After a change of counsel, the appellant applied before a second magistrate (who took over the case administratively) for an order declaring the entire trial proceedings null and void on the basis that the first magistrate had ceased to have jurisdiction upon his transfer; this application was dismissed, and the High Court on appeal also dismissed her appeal, prompting the present appeal to the Court of Appeal.

• Whether the second magistrate's decision refusing to nullify the trial proceedings was appealable under section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), given the definition of "decision" under section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
• Whether the continuation of the part-heard trial by the first magistrate after his transfer to another ministry, before he formally ceased to hold office as a Magistrate, rendered the trial proceedings null and void.
• Whether section 261 of the CPC, which governs procedure upon change of a trial magistrate, provides the applicable mechanism (continuation or retrial) rather than automatic nullification of proceedings.

• The Court held that the second magistrate's ruling was an interlocutory decision, not a "judgment, sentence or order" finally disposing of the parties' rights, and was therefore not appealable under section 307(1) of the CPC; any challenge should have been by way of judicial review.
• The Court held that the first magistrate remained a gazetted Magistrate at the material time and had not "ceased to exercise jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 261 of the CPC merely by reason of his administrative transfer; continuation of the part-heard trial by him was therefore lawful and did not render the proceedings void.
• Finding no prejudice to the appellant (who retained full rights at the defence stage, including recalling witnesses) and no error of law or fact in the High Court's decision, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and ordered the trial to continue before the second magistrate.