Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera said the detention of the appellant, R Sri Sanjeevan, was based on a warrant issued by a magistrate under the Prevention of Crime Act (Poca).

“The detention was not made in the absence of a lawful judicial order or in excess of jurisdiction,” the judge said, upholding a Court of Appeal ruling in 2023.

Also hearing the appeal were Justice Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, who chaired the bench, and Justice Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil.

Vazeer said investigating officer Poonam E Keling was merely executing a judicial order contained in the magistrate’s detention warrant.

He said the fact that Poonam had laid the complaint before the magistrate was irrelevant to the false imprisonment claim.

“The application for habeas corpus was allowed on a technicality, that is, the place of detention stated in the detention warrant was not a gazetted place of detention.

“That mistake cannot be attributed to Poonam and he cannot be held liable in an action for false imprisonment, nor would the inspector-general of police and the government be vicariously liable in the absence of liability on the part of the alleged primary tortfeasor,” he added.

Sri Sanjeevan, a former Malaysian Crime Watch Task Force chairman, was also ordered to pay RM50,000 in costs to the government.

He was represented by counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, S Preakas, V Satchitanandan, Khoo Suk Chyi, and Komal Vijay Sheth.

Senior federal counsel Al-Saifi Hashim, Liew Horng Bin, and Nur Ezdiani Roleb appeared for the government.

Sri Sanjeevan was arrested for alleged involvement in criminal activities on July 10, 2016.

He was produced the following day before a magistrate who issued a 21-day remand order under Poca.

He filed a habeas corpus application prior to the expiry of the remand, claiming that his arrest was unlawful.

On July 26, 2016, another High Court judge ordered Sanjeevan’s release, citing the breach of a provision in Poca.

Sanjeevan filed a civil suit in 2018, seeking a declaration and damages.

He named Poonam, the inspector-general of police, and the government as defendants.

The government, in its defence, denied that the arrest was unlawful and said no assault took place.

On June 28, 2022, the High Court entered judgment in Sri Sanjeevan’s favour, with damages to be assessed.

However, the judgment was set aside on Sept 15 last year by a three-member Court of Appeal bench.

Justice Azimah Omar, who delivered the judgment of the appeals court, said the High Court had erred in law in its finding. She said Sanjeevan should have filed a separate claim for assault and battery.