The Shah Alam High Court today struck out the criminal intimidation charge against human rights lawyer P Uthayakumar saying it was "badly framed" and "groundless".

In a scathing judgment, Judge Suriyadi Halim invoked his power under Section 173(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the lawyer.

The judge said the grounds in the intimidation accusation against Uthayakumar were absent, making a conviction impossible.

"This discharge must not be construed as an indication of any desire to disallow this prosecution, whether as a matter of policy or otherwise, of which I have no power, but primarily a decision based o­n the available records," he said.

Uthayakumar was charged in January under section 228 of the Penal Code for contempt of court and under section 506 for criminal intimidation of a police officer, chief inspector G Ponniah.

This was in relation to an inquest by the Sepang magistrate's court o­n Sept 3 last year into the death of an Indian youth in police custody.

Uthayakumar, while representing the family of the youth at the hearing, had allegedly said, "You watch out, I will fix you, we'll fix you", to Ponniah who testified at the inquest.

Ponniah later lodged a police report against the lawyer.

In March, Uthayakumar filed an application at the Shah Alam High Court to strike out the two charges, after his attempt to do so before Sepang magistrate Norazmi Mohd Narawi failed.

Last month, the Attorney-General's Chambers decided to withdraw the contempt charge against him while retaining the other.

Problematic charge

Meanwhile, Suriyadi said it was regrettable that the remaining charge against Uthayakumar had not clarified whether the threat was to cause death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or an offence punishable with death or imprisonment.

"It cannot be overstated that a charge must be certain in all cases, as otherwise an accused person will be left guessing, and prejudicially embarrassed not knowing what he had contravened or how to counter the allegations," said the judge.

He added the charge should have also specified the act of threat and the intent, which were the two "legal ingredients" to charge a person with intimidation.

Suriyadi said the charge became problematic because the accused was alleged to have uttered words of intimidation at 4.15pm while the inquest was o­ngoing.

"Yet a scrutiny of the notes of proceedings o­n that day failed to reveal any utterances of that nature, at that time or place, or for that matter comments by the court," he pointed out.

Magistrate rapped

The judge also criticised Sepang magistrate Norazmi for his handling of Uthayakumar's case.

"The charges were read out before the magistrate who conducted the inquest, the very officer who was supposed to have been insulted or interrupted.

"It does not require an eminent psychologist to opine that, any recipient of a supposed insult or unruly behaviour would not be jarred or affected, and perhaps even hold a grudge against the alleged miscreant (Uthayakumar)," he said.

He said as a result of this, the public viewed the decision of the magistrate to uphold the charges as o­ne based o­n "sentiments held by the magistrate against the applicant".

He also said the magistrate as an interested party should not have heard the bail application by Uthayakumar when the latter was charged in January.

"As far as the public and I were concerned, as justice was not seen done, then it never was done.

"Even though this issue was a side matter, it was an indication of things to come, portraying the lack of sensitivity or appreciation of the principles of justice o­n the part of the learned magistrate," he said.

'Police fiefdom'

Suriyadi also took note of Uthayakumar's claim that he was verbally abused by the police, stripped to his underpants and pictured in full view of nine officers during his detention in January.

"If those allegations were true, I see no necessity for him to be humiliated and robbed of his human dignity in such manner and fashion.

"They should not have behaved like lords and masters in their little fiefdom, where others are equivalent to serfs, open to abuses and directions," he said.

Suriyadi concluded his judgment expressing his hope that "the sad episode could be put to rest permanently with all parties putting their heads together and letting goodwill to prevail".

When contacted later, Uthayakumar said he was thankful for the decision by the high court.

"Many people prayed for my discharge and their prayer was answered. Justice was not o­nly done but manifestly and undoubtedly seen as done," he said.

The lawyer, who is a staunch critic of police brutality, also expressed gratitude to his lawyers and those who supported him.