You searched for: pendakwaan (Malajiska - Engelska)

pendakwaan
provide an investigation pap

pegawai pendakwaan
rjh

pemberitahuan memulakan tindakan pendakwaan di mahkamah
prosecution action in court

bahagian d5 (pendakwaan / undang undang)
part d5 (prosecution / act)

c/bahagian d5 (pendakwaan / undang undang)
c/part d5 (prosecution / act)

pencarian orang dan perkara yang sah untuk merekonstruksi keadaan perbuatan haram, menangkap atau menentukan pihak yang bersalah, dan membantu pendakwaan pesalah di negeri ini
a lawful search for people and things to reconstruct the circumstances of an illegal act, apprehend or determine the guilty party, and aid in the state’s prosecution of the offender

senaraikan empat (4) elemen pembunuhan yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan kes prima facie?
list down four (4) elements of murder that need to be proved by the prosecution to prove a prima facie case?

pihak pendakwaan mengatakan bahawa pertahanan pembelaan bahawa pihak pendakwa mesti terlebih dahulu membuktikan tuduhan di bawah s 23 akta sprm dan s 409 kanun keseksaan terhadap tertuduh sebagai preseden syarat adalah salah.if follows that the prosecution must prove that the element of an unlawful activity is satisfied
if follows that the prosecution must prove that the element of an unlawful activity is satisfied.ntion that the prosecution must first and foremost prove charges under s 23 of the macc act and s 409 of the penal code against the accused as a condition precedent is fallacious.

. memulakan hujahnya peguam menyatakan bahawa untuk membuktikan kesnya pihak pendakwaan mesti membuktikan kecenderungan menghasut di bawah manamana satu perenggan di bawah s 3(1)akta 15. peguam menyatakan bahawa di mahkamah tinggi pihak pendakwaan hanya mengemukakan hujah tentang kecenderungan menghasut di bawah s 3(1)(a) dan (d) dan telah tidak mengemukakan sebarang hujah di bawah s 3(1)(f).
15. initiating his argument, counsel states that in order to substantiate his case the prosecution must prove an incipient tendency under any one paragraph under s. 3(1) of act 15. the lawyer stated that in the supreme court the prosecution had only put forward arguments about incipient tendencies under s 3(1)(a) and (d) and had not put forward any arguments under s 3(1)(f).