DECEMBER 8 — Puthan Perumal’s "Political party cannot sue for defamation” is an interesting read.

One may recall the case of Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim (1999) where the accused was charged with, among others, five counts of corrupt practices under section 2(1) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance (No 22 of 1970).

According to the charges, the accused, while being a member of the administration, had committed corrupt practice by directing two senior police officers to obtain written statements from two persons to deny allegations of sodomy made against the accused, which the police had so obtained, for the accused’s advantage.

At the close of the case for the prosecution, the defence raised, among others, that no police report had been lodged against the accused in respect of any abuse of power or corruption and that there could not be an investigation into an alleged crime without a complaint. It was argued that a police report must be lodged in respect of any crime in order to facilitate a proper police investigation and that there could not be an investigation into an alleged crime without a complaint.

The accused referred to two police reports — P16 and P56 — and said that they were not complaints against the accused. P16 was made by a police officer (the accused’s ADC) on behalf of the accused on the advice of the two senior police officers. P56 was a complaint of criminal defamation against the author of a book made by the private secretary of the accused on his behalf.

In reply, the prosecution said that the police had classified P56 under section 499 of the Penal Code for an offence of criminal defamation and said that it was normal procedure for the police to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations in complaints of this nature.

The prosecution further said that it was not unusual for a person who made a report for himself to be charged when the investigation into the report made by him necessitated that course of action.

The following is what the High Court judge said, which law students in Malaysia learn by heart:

"I agree with the submission of the prosecution that a person who makes a report on a matter may himself be charged as a result of investigation conducted by the police on the report. Such a course of action is not prohibited by section 107(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with information relating to the commission of an offence.

"The section merely relates to the giving of information about the commission of a crime and does not in any way prescribe the persons to be charged following the investigation. A report lodged pursuant to the section will be the basis upon which the police will commence their investigation.

"The word ‘information’ in the section means something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least information of a crime, given with the object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate, as distinguished from information obtained by the police when actively investigating a crime.

"As the object of the section is merely to activate the investigative function of the police, it does not mean that a person who makes a report cannot himself be charged if the investigation reveals an offence against him.”

The advice here is simple: Don’t be too quick to make a police report.

He who reports can be investigated, and charged if the investigation reveals an offence against him.

*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.