4. Distinguish arrest for seizable offence and non seizable offence.
ARREST FOR SEIZABLE OFFENCE ARREST FOR NON SEIZABLE OFFENCE
Definition  also known as arrest without warrant
Authority  Section 23 CPC:
Allows a police officer or penghulu to arrest
without a warrant for any seizable offence
committed anywhere in Malaysia
 Section 25 CPC:
Requires penghulu to hand over the person
arrested to the nearest police station or police
officer who shall then rearrest the person.
 Section 27 CPC:
Allows private person to arrest without warrant
but the offence committed by a person must be a
seizable one and committed in the view of the
private person. The person arrested must be
handed over to the nearest police station or a
police officer without necessary delay.
 Section 105 CPC:
A police officer can arrest a person without a
warrant if the officer knows of a design to commit
 also known as arrest with warrant
 Section 42 CPC:
Police officer who execute warrant of arrest shall
without unnecessary delay bring the person
arrested before the Court
 Case:
Kuan Kwai Choi V Ak Zaidi Bin Pg Metali
[1993] 2 MLJ 207
 A warrant of arrest dated 11 June 1990 was
issued by the magistrates’ court authorizing
police officers to arrest the plaintiff for
failure to attend court and to produce the
plaintiff before the court.
 On Saturday 23 June 1990 at about 10am,
the defendant, an inspector of the Royal
Brunei Police Force in the execution of the
said warrant, arrested the plaintiff at her
home and brought her to the police station
 any seizable offence and he or she believes that
the arrest of the person is necessary to prevent the
commission of the offence
 Case:
Mahfuz Omar V. Inspektor Mohd Zaid
Madzizat & Ors & Another Case [2013] 2 CLJ
541
 There was supposed to be a march to
Istana Negara to present a Memorandum
concerning the need for free and fair
elections.
 On 9 July 2011, the plaintiffs alighted
from a taxi and were heading towards
Hotel Hilton where a press conference was
being held.
 The defendants had obtained an order
from the Magistrate’s court to bar sixty
people, including the plaintiffs, from being
present in the designated areas. However,
before the plaintiffs reached the hotel
lobby, they were arrested by the first
defendant.
 The defendants argued that the arrest was
made according to s. 105 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
 Held: The ingredients of section 105 have
not been met. There was no evidence of a
design by the plaintiffs to commit an
where the plaintiff was locked up at about
10.30am.
 The defendant drove to the central police
station where at about 11am, he wrote a
minute to his superior, DSP Kamaludin
who later in the day at about 4pm ordered
the defendant to take the plaintiff to court.
 The defendant and DSP Kamaludin phoned
up the court but could get no answer.
Shortly before 4.30pm on the same day, the
defendant signed a minute stating that he
could not bring the plaintiff to court in time
that day.
 Thereafter, the defendant had nothing
further to do with the case. The plaintiff was
kept in custody for 52 hours before being
finally taken before the court on Monday 25
June 1990 at about 2pm.
 The plaintiff instituted the present suit
against the defendant claiming damages for
false imprisonment.
 Held: Under section 42 of the Criminal
Procedure Code is provided that the police
officer, or other person executing a warrant
of arrest shall without unnecessary delay
bring the person arrested before the court. If
a court is not sitting, or a magistrate is not
available at the time when the arrest took
 offence and at the time of arrest it can place such circumstances may be regarded
hardly be said that the two plaintiffs’ arrest as a necessary delay. The plaintiff was
would have prevented the march from arrested shortly after 10am and the
taking place. The march did take place magistrate should have been available for
without the plaintiffs. some six hours thereafter. The court found
 The court referred to the decision of the that there was unnecessary delay in this
case of Jagdish Chander Bhatia v. State case as no effort was made to take the
27th May 1983 on section 151 of Indian plaintiff in front of a magistrate during that
CPC which is pari materia with section time. Between 10.30am and 4pm on 23
105 of the CPC. June, the plaintiff was falsely imprisoned.
 What is required under section 151 of the
Code is that the officer concerned must
know that the person to be arrested is
designing to commit a cognizable offence.
An apprehension that he may commit an
offence is not sufficient under that
provision. Apprehension is not the same
thing as knowledge. The former is a mere
feeling. Latter is a definite conclusion.
Further, even mere knowledge that the
person concerned would endanger peace
or tranquility need not resort to any
cognizable offence. Again, the possibility
of the commission of a cognizable offence
does not mean that he is designing to
commit such an offence.
 What type of offences
(according to 3rd Column of  offences under Penal Code which are punishable
First Schedule CPC) with imprisonment of 3 years and above
 Section 379 of Penal Code: Theft
“whoever commits theft shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
Example years, or with fine, or with both, and for a second or
subsequent offence shall be punished with imprisonment
and shall also be liable to fine or to whipping”
 offences where police officers are only allowed to
arrest with warrant; offences which are punishable
with imprisonment of less than 3 years
 However, if there is any written law that states an
offence is seizable even though the punishment is
less than three years imprisonment, therefore it is
considered as seizable under the principle of
generalia specialibus non derogant. This latin
phrase means that when a matter falls under any
specific provision, then it must be governed by
that provision and not by the general provision
 Section 465 of Penal Code: Forgery
“whoever commits forgery shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend for two years,
or with fine, or with both”