Bangkok Legal Service

Order 11. The Public Prosecutor was the plaintiff in the case against Mr. Dam, who was the defendant. The prosecution alleged a misjoinder of charges. Subsequently, the Public Prosecutor prosecuted Mr. Na jointly. Mr. Khiao testified that he confessed. The court issued a judgment in this case and an order directing the plaintiff to file a new case against Mr. Daeng. The case involving Mr. Daeng was ongoing during the evidentiary hearing. The plaintiff, the injured party, continued to prosecute Mr. Dam in that same offense as follows: The Public Prosecutor, as plaintiff, would call Mr. Dam and Mr. Khiao as witnesses. Could the Public Prosecutor prosecute Mr. Daeng if the court issued an order to consolidate the plaintiff’s case against Mr. Dam as defendant with the case where the Public Prosecutor was the plaintiff and Mr. Daeng was the defendant? Could Mr. Dam be called as a witness in the case prosecuting Mr. Daeng? According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the plaintiff calls the defendant as a witness. When the Public Prosecutor, as plaintiff, withdrew the cases against Mr. Daeng and Mr. Khiao, Mr. Dam was no longer the defendant in the case by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor called Mr. Dam as a witness, although Mr. Khiao had been prosecuted jointly with Mr. Daeng and the court had rendered a final judgment in that case, he was not permitted to prosecute Mr. Daeng in a new case. It was not prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Code. The Public Prosecutor, as plaintiff, could call Mr. Khiao as a witness. However, if the cases involving the plaintiff’s prosecution of Mr. Dam as defendant and the Public Prosecutor’s prosecution of Mr. Daeng as defendant were consolidated, all evidence would be admissible and a conviction could be rendered. Mr. Dam would then be in the position of a defendant in that case. The Public Prosecutor would be prohibited under Section of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bankruptcy Act. Mr. Jaeng, who owned a gold shop in the province ,