Abstract :
Since the landmark decision in Haw Tua Tau, there had been a plethora of differing cases exemplifying the dawn and dusk in standard of proof at the end of the prosecution s case. This conflict had eventually dictated the legislative amendment of section 173 (j) Criminal Procedure Code in year 1997 which provided for prima facie to be the standard of proof required at the end of the prosecution s case, hence, negating the effect of Arulpragasan and reviving the minimum evaluation test. Nonetheless, the term prima facie was merely a symbolic label as it was open to two tests, namely the maximum and minimum evaluation. However, from the Islamic perspective, the claimant must prove the case beyond any shadows of doubt with the highest standard of proof where maximum certainty is ensured. The pendulum with respect to the meaning of prima facie had deplorably swung back to the pre-Haw Tua Tau cases despite the amendments. This is not only a blatant exodus of the legislature s plain intention, but is also against the public interest that no guilty person should be acquitted without the paramount consideration of our criminal justice system.
