LAD5043

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I

SEMESTER II 2022/2023

POSTER PRESENTATION (WRITTEN)

QUESTION: Explain the exception to the general rule for the local criminal jurisdiction of
the Subordinate Court in Malaysia.

NAME OF THE LECTURER: DR. NORFAJRI ISMAIL

GROUP MEMBERS: -

NO NAME MATRIC NUMBER

.

1. HAYATUL HUSNA BINTI MAT DIN 1192051

2. NUR AINA AZMEEZA BINTI AZMI 1192053

3. SYAFAWATUL HUSNA BINTI RAMLI 1192055

 The subordinate court in Malaysia consists of Sessions Court and Magistrates’ Court and
generally, these two subordinate courts have its own territorial limits fixed by statutes. For session
courts, it is established under Section 59(1) of the Subordinate Courts Act 194 where it is stated
that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may constitute more than one Session court for each state and
Section 59(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 stated that a Session Court shall have jurisdiction
to hear and determine both civil or criminal cause or matter arising within the local limits of
jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that Magistrates Court
shall or have power to hear and determine cases within their local limits of jurisdiction. In addition,
Section 76 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 mentioned that Yang di-Pertuan Agong has the right
to assign local limits of jurisdiction to Magistrates Court and shall have jurisdiction to hear and
determine both civil and criminal matter within the local limits of jurisdiction. According to Section
2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, local limits of jurisdiction of Magistrates Court means the
limits of the ordinary administrative district in which the Court house is located.
The general rule for the local criminal jurisdiction is mentioned under Section 121 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. According to this Section, it is stated that the court can only hear and
determine the offence that happened within their local limits of jurisdiction. Therefore, only the court
which is situated in the local area where the offence was committed has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
However, there are certain exceptions to this rule whereby the subordinate courts may hear
and determine offence not within their local jurisdictions. Firstly, according to Section 122 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, the accused will be tried by the jurisdiction of the place where the
offence was committed and by the jurisdiction of the place where the consequences of the offence
ensued. Hence, this serves as an exception to Section 122 where not only is the local jurisdiction
where the offence was committed but if there’s a consequence to the offence and it happened in
another jurisdiction, then the other jurisdiction may hear and determine the offence. To illustrate,
Illustration (a) of Section 122 where it is stated that A is wounded within the local jurisdiction of
Court of X and dies within the jurisdiction of Y and as such, both Court X and Y have the jurisdiction
to hear the offence as the consequence of the offence occurred within the jurisdiction of Y too.
Then, under Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an offence which is related to
another offence may be tried by the court within the local jurisdiction where either offence was
committed if the accused could commit the first mentioned offence. This shows that the relation of the
two offences provides the exception for the general rule on the local jurisdiction of the offence
committed as both offences are related to each other. For example, referring to Illustration (a) of
Section 123, it is mentioned that the offence of abetment may be enquired by the local jurisdiction of
the court where the offence abetted was committed. This means that the relation between the offence
of abetment and the offence abetted makes it an exception where both courts where the abetment
happened and the offence that was committed due to abetment may enquire into both offences.
Meanwhile, Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the exception whereby
a court can hear any cases outside their local jurisdiction limits which also applies to the subordinate
court. According to subsection (1) of section 124, an accused who escaped from custody may be tried
in the place where he had escaped or in the place where he was arrested. Subsection (2) further
provides that an accused of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be tried in the
place where he committed the offence, or where he had received the property. Lastly, subsection (3)
stated that an accused of stealing may be tried in the place where he had stolen the property, or where
he had received the stolen property. Thus, in such cases illustrated under the section, both courts have
the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Moreover, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the exception in
circumstances where the place of the offence committed is uncertain. Such a situation takes place
when an offence was committed in several local areas, partly committed in one local area and partly
in another area, the offence is a continuing one whereby it was committed in more than one local area,
and if the offence contained several acts which were done in different local areas. Therefore, more
than one court may have jurisdiction over the accused.
Furthermore, Section 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code has laid down that an accused
who committed an offence while performing a journey may be tried by a Court of local limits, or in
the place where he committed the offence. Thus, more than one Court may have jurisdiction over such
an accused.
Next, Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code also provides one of the exceptions
where If there’s any doubt regarding which court should enquire into or try an offence, subordinate
courts may refer to the High Court for directions and so, the High Court may decide which court the
offence should be enquired into or tried. Concurrently, even if the offence committed did happen
within the local jurisdiction of the subordinate courts, subordinate courts may not have the jurisdiction
to hear the offence if the High Court orders so. This can be seen in the case of Public Prosecutor v
Rajappan [1986] 1 MLJ 152 where the Public Prosecutor had applied to the High Court in Kuala
Lumpur to ascertain whether the Magistrate Court in Kelang had the jurisdiction to hear bigamy
offence committed in Kelang where the first marriage was solemnized in Malaysia and the second
marriage which was appeared to be bigamous was solemnized in India. It was held by the court that
since the second marriage was solemnized in India, even though the bigamy offence was committed
in Kelang, the Magistrate Court in Kelang had no jurisdiction to hear the offence of bigamy.
Consequently, it shows the power of the High Court in eliminating the power to jurisdiction of the
subordinate courts to hear the offence within the local jurisdiction even though the offence was
committed within the local jurisdiction of the subordinate courts.
Lastly, another exception to the general rule is when the offence happens from outside of the
jurisdiction to within the jurisdiction, the offence may be enquired into or tried by the court within the
jurisdiction. This means that the offence must be done continuously from outside the jurisdiction to
within the jurisdiction for the offence to be heard within the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts. In
the case of Lee Szu Yin v Public Prosecutor [1962] MLJ 85, Lee Szu Yin was the co-accused to the
accused person where Lee Szu Yin had made an undervalued declaration in Singapore meanwhile the
accused person was responsible for preparing the declaration for customs in Johor. It was held by the
court that since the act done by Lee Szu Yin was committed in Singapore and not a continuous one,
the Magistrate’s Court in Johore Bahru had no jurisdiction to hear the offence committed by Lee Szu
Yin. Concurrently, had the act of Lee Szu Yin run from her making an undervalued declaration in
Singapore to her preparing a declaration for customs in Johor, then the Magistrate’s Court in Johor
Bahru shall have the jurisdiction to hear the offence.

References
Board, L. R. (2022). Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593). International Law Book Services.

Lee Szu Yin v Public Prosecutor, MLJ 85.

Public Prosecutor v Rajappan, 1 MLJ 152 (Supreme Court July 4, 1986).

Sidhu, B. S. (2022). Criminal Litigation Process (Fourth Edition). Selangor Darul Ehsan: Sweet &
Maxwell.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593)

Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (Act 92)