JUDGMENT

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ:

Introduction

[1] The core issue in this appeal concerns the interpretation of certain provisions in the Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] and the Poison Regulations 1952, as well as the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368] and its regulations, namely the Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984. We shall respectively refer to them asAct 366, the 1952 Regulations, Act 368, and the 1984 Regulations.

[2] The six questions upon which leave was granted ('Leave Questions'), are these:

"Leave Question 1

Whether the legal principles enunciated in Datuk Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed v. Government Of Malaysia & Anor [1978] 1 MLRA 504; [1979] 2 MLJ 101 and YAB Dato' Dr Zambry Abd Kadir & Ors v. YB Sivakumar Varatharaju Naidu; Attorney-General Malaysia (Intervener) [2009] 1 MLRA 474; [2009] 4 MLJ 24; [2009] 4 CLJ 253 apply to the situations or circumstances or cases where there are substantial issues or grievances regarding pending criminal investigation, criminality, criminal charges and prosecutorial discretion of the Public Prosecutor?

Leave Question 2

In the circumstances where the disputes canvassed by the applicant is on the registered medical practitioners' right to dispense Ivermectin to patients for the specific purpose of pandemic Covid-19 treatment, is it apt for the Court to only rely on the provisions of the Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] and Poison Regulations 1952 [1952 Regulations] and disregard the provisions of the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368] and Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 [1984 Regulations] in determining whether a registered medical practitioner is entitled to dispense Ivermectin to patients for the purpose of prophylaxis and / or medical treatment?