These are the same “cogent reasons” that the AG’s Chambers had on Tuesdayin its brief two-paragraph statement, where it referred to the High Court as having said the prosecution had given “cogent reasons” for its application for a DNAA. The AGC did not say why it decided to discontinue the trial against Zahid.
Under Section 254A, when an accused person has been given a discharge by the court and is recharged for the same offence, the trial “shall be reinstated and be continued as if there had been” no order given to discharge the person from the case. But it will only apply where witnesses have been called to give evidence in the trial before the court gives its order to discharge the accused person.
“There's a qualification, Section 254A, it applies only when witnesses have already been called, which would apply in Zahid's case, if he's recharged,” she said. Ragunath said there have been many cases where Section 254A was used, noting for example that these were used during the Covid-19 pandemic when trial has started but a witness is overseas and cannot come into Malaysia due to travel restrictions and where a DNAA was granted before the trial was reinstated.