Ramlan vs Cader Meedin – clr volume 1 page 043

The case between Ramlan (appellant) and Cader Meedin (respondent) addressed the issue of whether the summary trial procedure under the amended Criminal Procedure Code, specifically the interpretation and application of Ordinance No. 22 of 1890 and section 226 regarding the framing of charges, was properly applied when a formal charge was not framed prior to conviction. The findings established that under the amended procedure, a formal charge is not necessary when the offence charged in the complaint is followed, but the framing of a charge is required if the offence proven is not disclosed in the complaint. Reliance was placed on the procedural amendments of Ordinance No. 22 of 1890, and it was determined that the conviction and sentence were regular as the procedure complied with the sta