Sanjeevan remains free from Poca after police withdrew appeal
Malaysian Crime Watch Task Force (MyWatch) chairperson R Sri Sanjeevan remains a free man after the police withdrew their appeal to detain him under the Prevention of Crime Act (Poca) 1959 in the Federal Court today.
Senior federal counsel Muhammad Sinti, who appeared for investigating officer ASP K Poonam and the inspector-general of police, told the court that they have no intention of proceeding with the appeal.
Malaysian Crime Watch Task Force (MyWatch) chairperson R Sri Sanjeevan remains a free man after the police withdrew their appeal to detain him under the Prevention of Crime Act (Poca) 1959 in the Federal Court today.
Senior federal counsel Muhammad Sinti, who appeared for investigating officer ASP K Poonam and the inspector-general of police, told the court that they have no intention of proceeding with the appeal.
“Following this, we are withdrawing this appeal,” said Muhammad.
Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria who leads a five-member bench then ruled that the appeal is dismissed.
The other Federal Court judges sitting with him were Justice Ahmad Ma'arop, Justice Ramly Ali, Justice Balia Yusof Wahi and Justice Jeffrey Tan.
Sanjeevan, who was present in court, was represented by a team of lawyers led by Gobind Singh Deo.
However, the MyWatch chairperson is still facing several extortion charges in Kuala Lumpur, Seremban and Temerloh.
Last July, judicial commissioner Mohamad Shariff Abu Samah allowed Sanjeevan's habeas corpus application, and declared his remand under Poca as null and void.
“The procedures for detaining a person must be followed to the letter.
“As there are doubts regarding the order, giving rise to several interpretations, the court allows the (habeas corpus) application and orders that Sanjeevan be released from the remand centre with immediate effect,” Mohamad Sharif had ruled.
Gobind had argued that the detention order, made pursuant to the remand, was invalid because the facts contained in the order were wrong.
He said Section 4(1)(a) of Poca stipulated that the remand was for detaining a person in police custody pending further investigation, adding that it was not for general custody or custody in prison.
However, the order for Sanjeevan’s detention was directed to an ‘officer in charge of prison’, which Gobind had said treated Sanjeevan as though he was charged with a ‘crime’ under Poca.
The order reads, “Sri Sanjeevan a/l Ramakrishnan (hereafter referred as ‘the accused’) has been brought to this court and charged of an offence under Section 4(1)(a) of Poca and needs to have the accused detained.
“This hereby empowers and requires that you the officer receive the accused in your care together with this warrant and incarcerate him safely in prison until July 31, 2016, when you will cause him to be brought to court on the said time and date, unless you receive orders otherwise in the meantime.”


Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.