Summary and Facts
Public Prosecutor v Sanjay Kumar a/l Selvakumaru [2026] 10 MLJ 665 concerned a prosecution appeal against the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of driving with an alcohol concentration exceeding the prescribed limit. The acquittal turned on the prosecution's failure to prove that the statutory breath-testing procedures had been followed.
Legal Issues
Whether the prosecution had proved compliance with the prescribed breath-test procedures under the Motor Vehicles (Breath, Blood and Urine Tests) Rules 1995.
Whether a second breath test at the police station under s 45C of the Road Transport Act 1987 was mandatory.
High Court’s Findings
The respondent was first required to provide a breath specimen at the place of the requirement under s 45B of the Road Transport Act 1987 - the initial procedure had been followed.
A second test at the police station under s 45C(1) was discretionary; the word 'may' conferred a discretion on the investigating officer and did not impose a mandatory requirement.
The prosecution nonetheless had to prove compliance with the procedures prescribed by the Motor Vehicles (Breath, Blood and Urine Tests) Rules 1995, including rr 4 and 5 and the First Schedule.
That compliance was not established on the evidence, leaving a gap fatal to the charge.
The sessions court's acquittal was therefore correct and the prosecution's appeal was dismissed.
Practical Implications
In drink-driving prosecutions, strict proof of compliance with the prescribed testing procedures is essential; a favourable reading is not enough if the procedure behind it is not established.
The discretion to conduct a second station test under s 45C is not a mandatory safeguard, but the prosecution must still prove the integrity of the test actually relied upon.
Enforcement agencies should document each prescribed step to withstand challenge, and defence counsel should scrutinise procedural compliance closely.