MD HABIBUR RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya (CB-43-1-01/2024)

MD HABIBUR RAHMAN

MOHAMMAD FIROZ KAZI

MD MASUDUR RAHMAN … PEMOHON- (NO PASSPORT BANGLADESH EG0538252) PEMOHON DAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Raub

Md Tariqul Islam 2. Md Habibur Rahman 3. Mohammad Firoz Kazi 4. Md Masudur Rahm] S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Pada 24.01.2024 sepucuk surat telah diterima oleh Mahkamah dari Pemohon yang dikenali sebagai Md Habibur Rahman. Surat tersebut menyatakan bahawa dia dan dua orang lagi telah dituduh di Mahkamah Sesyen Raub dengan nombor CC-62RS-1-02/2023 di bawah seksyen 394 Kanun Keseksaan. Mereka telah mengaku salah dan telah dijatuhi hukuman penjara 8 tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap dan dikenakan tiga kali sebatan rotan. [2] Md Habibur Rahman menyatakan bahawa mereka tidak faham pertuduhan dan prosiding di Mahkamah Sesyen Raub kerana mereka tidak diberikan perkhidmatan Jurubahasa Bangladesh disebabkan mereka tidak memahami Bahasa Melayu. [3] Setelah meneliti surat tersebut Mahkamah ini berpendapat wajar untuk penelitian kepada nota keterangan prosiding bagi melihat sama ada prosiding tersebut adalah sesuatu yang teratur atau sebaliknya. Ia juga bertujuan untuk meneliti sama ada Mahkamah ini perlu melaksanakan bidang kuasa semakan seperti yang dinyatakan dalam seksyen 323 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (KPJ). [4] Peguam pihak Pemohon telah memfailkan hujahan bertulis dan menyatakan bahawa prosiding yang dijalankan di Mahkamah tersebut adalah tidak teratur dan tidak mematuhi kehendak seksyen 173 KPJ. S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [5] Sebaliknya Timbalan Pendakwa Raya berhujah bahawa prosiding yang dijalankan adalah teratur dan tidak timbul isu sama ada Pemohon-Pemohon faham Bahasa Melayu atau tidak. Ini adalah disebabkan nota keterangan menunjukkan mereka telah mengaku salah dan membuat rayuan peringanan hukuman. Oleh itu Timbalan Pendakwa Raya berhujah bahawa tiada alasan untuk Mahkamah ini membuat semakan kepada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tersebut. [6] Semasa pendengaran kes ini Peguam Pemohon-Pemohon telah memohon supaya kes ini ditangguhkan bagi memberi peluang kepada Pemohon-Pemohon meneliti hujahan Responden yang diterima oleh Peguam pada petang 07.05.2024. Timbalan Pendakwa Raya tidak mengemukakan bantahan kepada permohonan tersebut malahan sudi kes ditangguhkan ke tarikh lain bagi memberi peluang Peguam Pemohon-Pemohon membalas hujahan Responden. [7] Dalam hal ini Mahkamah berpendapat apabila sesuatu permohonan semakan difailkan dan Mahkamah telah menetapkan tarikh untuk semakan tersebut adalah diharapkan pihak-pihak bersedia untuk menjalankan semakan tersebut melainkan terdapat keadaan-keadaan yang luar biasa sehingga tidak membolehkan Peguam, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Pemohon atau Mahkamah bersidang. Ini adalah disebabkan tujuan semakan dibuat ialah untuk memastikan ketepatan, keesahan dan kewajaran terhadap dapatan hukuman atau perintah yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Rendah. Jika terdapat sebarang ketidaktepatan, ketidakesahan dan ketidakwajaran berlaku ia perlu diperbetulkan dengan kadar segera bagi mengelakkan ianya S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w berpanjangan sehingga menjejaskan prinsip keadilan. Mahkamah ini berpendapat untuk semakan ini ditangguhkan semata-mata pihak-pihak tidak dapat membuat persediaan yang sewajarnya bagi mengendalikan pendengaran semakan kes ini adalah sesuatu yang tidak boleh dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah. [8] Seksyen 323 KPJ memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “323 Powers to call for records of subordinate Courts

A Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of that subordinate Court.

Orders made under sections 97 and 98 are not proceedings within the meaning of this section.” [9] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Tan Sri Eric Chia Eng Hock v. PP [2007] 1 CLJ 565 telah menjelaskan hakikat semakan seperti berikut: “[32] It has been said that a 'revision is not a right and is only a procedural facility afforded to a party, while an appeal is a statutory right conferred on a party. It cannot be said that a proceeding in revision is a continuation of the suit, appeal or trial. S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w It is only a step-in-aid for invoking the powers of superintendence by the Sessions Judge and the High Court for correcting irregularities if any, in the judgments and orders of the subordinate courts. Interference in revision being a discretionary power vested in the superior courts, a revision petition cannot be considered to be a continuation of the proceedings pending in the trial court or the appellate court' (see: Kunhammad v. Abdul Kader [1977] KLT 840). Similarly, in Ku Izham bin Ku Adnan v. Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 CLJ 956 it was said that the 'object of a revision is to confer upon criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment, which has resulted in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order or in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The judge's duty is to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court.'” [10] Ia juga turut dinyatakan terlebih awal oleh Mahkamah Agong dalam kes Liaw Kwai Wah & Anor. v. Public Prosecutor [1987] CLJ Rep 163. [11] Bagi memastikan sama ada terdapatnya ketepatan, keesahan dan kewajaran maka Mahkamah akan merujuk kepada nota prosiding yang merupakan catatan bagi menggambarkan apakah yang berlaku dalam prosiding tersebut. Adalah didapati bahawa prosiding tersebut S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w telah dirakamkan melalui sistem Court Recording Transcription (CRT). Ini bermakna rakaman melalui sistem rakaman Mahkamah dikehendaki untuk dijadikan transkrip seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 272F KPJ seperti berikut: “272F Electronic record to be transcribed

Where any proceedings before any Judge or Magistrate are recorded by any mechanical means, the Judge or Magistrate shall cause the electronic record of such proceedings to be transcribed by any person authorized in writing by the Judge or Magistrate.

Where any person authorized to transcribe under subsection

is not a public servant, such person shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code [Act 574] while discharging his duties as such transcriber.

Upon the production of the transcript by any person authorized under subsection (1), the Judge or Magistrate shall ascertain the accuracy and reliability of such transcript and where the Judge or Magistrate makes a ruling that any evidence recorded is inadmissible or irrelevant and shall not form part of the record of proceedings, he may direct that the electronic record of such evidence be excluded from the record of proceedings.

The transcript shall be authenticated by the signature of the Judge or Magistrate.” S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [12] Disebabkan Mahkamah akan berdasarkan kepada transkripsi tersebut maka hakim yang mendengar prosiding tersebut mestilah memastikah bahawa transkripsi dibuat dengan tepat. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Abdol Rahim Zamani Mohammad Ali v. PP [2015] 8 CLJ 990 seperti berikut: [26] Lest it be mistaken, in coming to this conclusion we are not making a ruling that the CRT recording is to be given priority over the notes taken by a judge. This inconsistency should have not happened in the first place, had the learned trial judge adhered to the requirement of s. 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code. [27]Section 272 of the CPC stipulates that a presiding judge is duty bound to note and record evidence including demeanour of witness, if necessary. With the introduction of the electronic CRT s. 272C was introduced to allow mechanical means of recording evidence. For this purpose we reproduce the relevant provisions of the CPC below: Electronic record to be transcribed.

(1) Where any proceedings before any Judge or Magistrate are recorded by any mechanical means, the Judge or Magistrate shall cause the electronic record of such proceedings to be transcribed by any person authorised in writing by the Judge or Magistrate.

Where any person authorised to transcribe under subsection (1) is not a public servant, such person shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code [Act 574] while discharging his duties as such transcriber.

Upon the production of the transcript by any person authorised under subsection (1), the Judge or Magistrate shall ascertain the accuracy and reliability of such transcript and where the Judge or Magistrate makes a ruling that any evidence recorded is inadmissible or irrelevant and shall not form part of the record of proceedings, he may direct that the electronic record of such evidence be excluded from the record of proceedings,

The transcript shall be authenticated by the signature of the Judge or Magistrate. [28] Under s. 272F the mechanically recorded proceedings may be transcribed by a person authorised by the judge. Once the transcriber produced the record the judge under s. 272F(3) of the CPC, shall ascertain the accuracy and reliability of the transcription by the transcriber. There cannot therefore be two different sets of record of proceedings. If the learned judge had abided by the provisions of s. 272F, the present irreconcilable difference in the notes would not have arisen. It is the duty of the learned judge to ensure that the proceedings before him are properly recorded be it by manual process or by mechanical device as in the present case. S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [29] In our view the failure of the learned judge to ensure the accuracy of the recording should not be taken lightly, as it had prejudiced the appellant's case in this instance. Such a failure is a breach of the provision under s. 272F of the CPC. When proceedings are recorded by mechanical means as in this case, the trial judge ought to have caused the electronic record of such proceedings to be transcribed by any person he authorised. Then the judge is duty bound to ascertain the accuracy and reliability of such transcript. If the judge makes a ruling that any evidence recorded is inadmissible or irrelevant and shall not form part of the record of proceedings, he would have to direct that part of the evidence (though recorded) to be excluded from the record of proceedings. Thus be it by an electronic device or hand written recording the trial judge remains responsible for the accuracy of the notes of proceedings before him.” Ia turut disentuh oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Low Thiam Hock v. PP [2021] 6 CLJ 556. [13] Oleh itu adalah penting untuk hakim bicara memastikan bahawa nota prosiding yang yang direkod secara mekanikal dilakukan transkripsi dengan mengambil kira ketepatan catatan di dalam nota prosiding. Ini adalah penting disebabkan ia akan menjadi sebahagian daripada nota keterangan yang akan dirujuk oleh Mahkamah. Ini diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 272I KPJ seperti berikut: S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w “272I Transcript to form part of record or notes of proceedings or evidence A reference in any law to the record or notes of proceedings or evidence shall include a reference to the authenticated copy of any transcript of any electronic record and such transcript shall form part of the record or notes of proceedings or evidence. A reference in any law to the record or notes of proceedings or evidence shall include a reference to the authenticated copy of any transcript of any electronic record and such transcript shall form part of the record or notes of proceedings or evidence.” [14] Sebarang kesilapan dan ketidaktepatan transkripsi akan menjejaskan nota prosiding yang menjadi asas kepada penelitian oleh Mahkamah yang melakukan semakan atau mendengar rayuan. Seksyen 173(b) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah [15] Adalah menjadi tanggungjawab hakim untuk memastikan bahawa Tertuduh yang membuat keputusan untuk membuat pengakuan salah faham pertuduhan, kesan dan akibat pengakuan salah dan pengakuan salah tersebut tidak lakukan secara bersyarat. Ini sudah terang lagi bersuluh terdapat di bawah seksyen 173(b) KPJ seperti berikut: S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w “173 Procedure in summary trials The following procedure shall be observed by Magistrates in summary trials:

…

If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, whether as originally framed or as amended, the plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted on it and the Court shall pass sentence according to law: Provided that before a plea of guilty is recorded the Court shall ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea and intends to admit, without qualification, the offence alleged against him.

… ” [16] Mahkamah ini berpendapat langkah yang diambil oleh hakim bicara dalam memastikan kepatuhan seksyen 173(b) KPJ itu hendaklah digambarkan melalui nota prosiding. Dalam kes ini ia boleh dilihat dalam catatan pada nota prosiding kes ini yang menunjukkan: [17] Ini sudah memadai sekiranya Tertuduh memahami bahasa Mahkamah iaitu Bahasa Melayu. Namun dalam kes ini kesemua Pemohon adalah warganegara Bangladesh. Oleh itu adalah wajar sekiranya Mahkamah mengajukan beberapa soalan kepada Pemohon-S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w Pemohon berkenaan kefahaman dan kefasihan mereka dalam Bahasa Melayu bagi mempertimbangkan sama ada pertuduhan ini akan difahami oleh Pemohon-Pemohon. Jika ini dilakukan ia sudah memadai untuk menunjukkan bahawa pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut telah difahami kesan dan akibat pengakuan salah bagi memenuhi kehendak seksyen 173(b) KPJ. Namun ia tidak digambarkan dalam nota prosiding dalam kes ini. Adakah terdapatnya ketidaktepatan, ketidakesahan dan ketidakwajaran dalam prosiding di Mahkamah Rendah [18] Bagi mendapat jawapan kepada persoalannya di atas, Mahkamah perlu meneliti nota prosiding pada 20.03.2023 yang berkaitan dengan Pemohon-Pemohon ini seperti berikut: S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w t.t. S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [19] Asas kepada permohonan semakan ini ialah kegagalan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen untuk mematuhi prosedur pengakuan salah di bawah seksyen 173(b) KPJ seperti yang dihujahkan oleh peguam Pemohon-Pemohon. Rujukan kepada nota prosiding menunjukkan bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah berpuas hati dengan pengakuan salah Pemohon-Pemohon dan telah mengambil kira rayuan peringanan yang dikemukakan oleh Pemohon-Pemohon. Oleh itu bagaimana dikatakan bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon tidak mengetahui dan memahami prosiding tersebut? [20] Walau bagaimanapun dalam kes ini kesemua Pemohon adalah dari Bangladesh. Mahkamah juga tidak ditunjukkan dalam nota prosiding mengesahkan bahawa mereka faham Bahasa Melayu sebelum membacakan pertuduhan kepada mereka. Ini berkait langsung dengan tanggungjawab Mahkamah untuk memastikan pengakuan salah dibuat secara teratur di bawah seksyen 173(b) KPJ. Bagaimanakah Mahkamah Rendah akan dapat menentukan bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon memahami pertuduhan yang dikemukakan kepada mereka dan memastikan kepatuhan seksyen 173(b) KPJ sebelum menerima pengakuan salah Pemohon-Pemohon dan menjatuhkan hukuman setelah sabitan dibuat oleh Mahkamah. [21] Oleh itu dalam ini Mahkamah perlu meneliti kepada keperluan menyediakan jurubahasa seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 270 KPJ. Seksyen 270 KPJ memperuntukkan seperti berikut: S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w “270 Interpretation of evidence to accused

Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and he is present in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open court in a language which he understands.

When documents are put in for the purpose of formal proof it shall be in the discretion of the Court to interpret as much of it as appears necessary.” [22] Penelitian awal kepada seksyen 270 KPJ ini menunjukkan bahawa sekiranya keterangan dikemukakan kepada seseorang Tertuduh yang tidak diwakili, maka adalah perlu diterjemahkan keterangan di Mahkamah Terbuka dalam bahasa yang difahaminya. Kegagalan menyediakan jurubahasa boleh menyebabkan suatu perbicaraan itu diputuskan sebagai tidak sah. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Knalliah v Rex [1948] 1 MLJ 185, Hakim Murray-Anysley CJ menyatakan: “In this case the appellant, who is Tamil speaking, was charged with and convicted of an offence under section 323 of the Penal Code. At the hearing there was no Tamil interpreter present, so the evidence was translated into Malay and the appellant gave his evidence which was, apparently, given in that language. This is obviously wrong. I accordingly ordered a new trial.” S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [23] Tanggungjawab Mahkamah menyebabkan jurubahasa bagi memenuhi seksyen 270 KPJ tersebut telah dinyatakan dalam kes Fong Hong Sium v PP [1950] 1 MLJ 293 seperti berikut: “The difficulties of the Subordinate Courts as regards interpretation in the more unusual languages are serious, and I should be reluctant to do anything to increase them. There are, however, certain rules which must be observed. I am not aware of any exception to the general rule that an accused person is entitled to have proceedings interpreted to him in any language which he desires to use. I think it doubtful whether he can be obliged to use even the language which is his native language, if he does not want to. It is the duty of the Court to find an interpreter for the language required, and the Court must be satisfied that the interpreter is competent to do his work efficiently.” [24] Begitu juga dalam kes Huang Chin Shiu v Rex [1952] 1 MLJ 7 Hakim Spenser Wilkinson menyatakan seperti berikut: “It is to my mind essential to the validity of a plea of guilty that the accused should fully understand what he is pleading to; and it is impossible to be sure that he has understood, unless the charge has been explained to him in a language with which he is entirely conversant. Legal phraseology is apt to be confusing to a layman, even in his own native language, and nobody can be expected to understand all the implications of a criminal charge, if it is read out to him in what is to him a foreign language.” S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [25] Berdasarkan kepada seksyen 270 KPJ ini adalah didapati bahawa menjadi sebahagian daripada sistem perundangan keadilan untuk menyediakan jurubahasa bagi membolehkan seseorang Tertuduh memahami apakah yang sedang berlaku dalam Mahkamah. Ini adalah penting bagi membolehkan seseorang Tertuduh itu menggunakan haknya yang dibenarkan oleh undang-undang dan membuat sanggahan kepada keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan. Apa yang lebih menarik ialah bahawa sekiranya seseorang itu hadir sendiri dengan ketiadaan peguam. Dalam hal ini frasa yang digunakan ialah “whenever any evidence”. Dalam konteks ini rujukan silang dibuat kepada takrifan keterangan di bawah Akta Keterangan 1950 seksyen 3 yang memberikan takrifan keterangan seperti berikut: "evidence" includes-

all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry: such statements are called oral evidence;

all documents produced for the inspection of the court: such documents are called documentary evidence.” [26] Pemakaian seksyen 270 KPJ ini telah disentuh oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Fidelis Daniel Enechukwu v. PP [2015] 4 CLJ 810 seperti berikut: “[11] With respect, we were inclined to follow the decision in Kunnath 's case (supra). As stated by the Lord Chief Justice of S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w England in R v. Lee Kun (1915) 11 Cr App R 293; [1914-1915] All ER Rep 603 which was quoted in Mat Repin (supra): If [the accused] does not understand the English language, he cannot waive compliance with the rule that evidence must be translated; he cannot dispense with it by express or implied consent, and it matters not that no application is made by him for the assistance of an interpreter. It is for the court to see that the necessary means are adopted to convey the evidence to his intelligence, notwithstanding that, either through ignorance or timidity or disregard of his own interests, he makes no application to the court. The reason is that the trial of a person for a criminal offence is not a contest of private interests in which the rights of parties can be waived at pleasure.” [27] Mahkamah juga mendapati terdapat keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan Singapura berkenaan perkara ini iaitu dalam kes Mat Repin bin Mamat v PP [1994] 1 SLR 663 seperti berikut: “Section 209 and other provisions in the CPC as to interpreters are statutory safeguards to ensure that an accused is substantially able to comprehend the proceedings to enable him to best present his defence. The ability to understand the prosecution case against him will allow him to decide whether to give evidence himself, whether to call witnesses on his behalf or whether to instruct his counsel to rebut any particular piece of evidence given by the prosecution. S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w However, to that a caveat must be added. Notwithstanding that there has been non-compliance with s 209(1) or any provision requiring the accused’s comprehension of the proceedings, an appellate court will only interfere if the accused has been prejudiced such that there has been a failure of justice. Mere irregularities which do not result in the accused being prejudiced in his defence are defects which can be cured by s 396 of the CPC. One such failure of justice was occasioned in the recent Privy Council decision of Kunnath v The State The Guardian 20 August 1993 (distd). We are indebted to Mr Almenoar for referring it to us.” [28] Dalam kes Mat Repin bin Mamat (supra) Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa ketiadaan jurubahasa dalam kes tersebut tidak menjejaskan perbicaraan. Ia berdasarkan alasan berikut: “As for Ms Granroth’s evidence as to how she analyzed the plant material, we do not see how the appellant has been prejudiced by not understanding her evidence of the procedure she adopted as even a layman who could understand English would not have been any better equipped to challenge the intricacies of scientific procedures. In our view, there was nothing that the appellant could have added to his counsel’s robust challenge of the scientific procedure, assuming that he had actually understood what Ms Granroth was saying. The really contentious evidence in the S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w present case was the evidence of HCO Png and, especially, that of CO Lim, who alleged that the appellant had made certain incriminating confessions to them. By that time, however, the services of the Kelantanese interpreter had already been secured and the appellant was able to understand what was being said.” [29] Keperluan jurubahasa ini juga telah dinyatakan dalam kes Radhakrishnan Kunnath v The State [1993] 1 WLR 1315 seperti berikut: “It is an essential principle of the criminal law that a trial for an indictable offence should be conducted in the presence of the defendant: Lawrence v. The King [1933] A.C. 699, 708, per Lord Atkin. As their Lordships have already recorded, the basis of this principle is not simply that there should be corporeal presence but that the defendant, by reason of his presence, should be able to understand the proceedings and decide what witnesses he wishes to call, whether or not to give evidence and, if so, upon what matters relevant to the case against him: Rex v. Kwok Leung [1909] 4 H.K.L.R. 161, 173–174, per Gompertz J., and Rex v. Lee Kun [1916] 1 K.B. 337, 341, per Lord Reading C.J. A defendant who has not understood the conduct of proceedings against him cannot, in the absence of express consent, be said to have had a fair trial.” S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [30] Malahan Mahkamah di United Kingdom dalam kes R v Lee Kun [1914-15] All ER Rep 603 menjelaskan kepentingan jurubahasa. Lord Reading CJ menyatakan seperti berikut: “We have come to the conclusion that the safer course, where the foreigner accused is defended by counsel, is that the evidence should be interpreted to him, except where he or counsel on his behalf expresses a wish to dispense with the translation, and the judge thinks fit to permit the omission; the judge should not permit it unless he is of opinion that by reason of what has passed before the trial the accused substantially understands the evidence to be given and the case to be made against him at the trial. To follow this practice may be inconvenient in some cases, and may cause some further expenditure of time; but such a procedure is more in consonance with that scrupulous care of the accused's interests which has distinguished the administration of justice in our criminal courts, and therefore it is better to adopt it. No injustice will be caused by permitting the exception above mentioned. Speaking generally, police court proceedings will have taken place, and the evidence will there have been translated to the accused before he has to stand his trial on the indictment, so that at the trial he knows the case to be made against him. He am instruct his counsel upon it, and he may leave his defence in counsel's hands without having the evidence again translated to explain to him that which he already knows, and there seems no reasonable objection to such a course. If there should be a substantial departure from the evidence recorded in the S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w depositions, the judge would take care, even if counsel omitted to ask for it, that the variation or addition should be translated to the accused, so that he might throw any further light upon the case. The importance of the translation of any new or additional evidence cannot be doubted; such evidence may have a special significance to the accused, and may enable him to recollect facts till then forgotten, or to give additional information to his counsel for cross-examination. Further, he may wish to make a statement dealing with the evidence against him instead of himself giving evidence, and he should have all information for that purpose. Or, again, the variation from or addition to the evidence originally given at the police court may have a bearing upon the sentence. We think, therefore, that any substantial variation from the story originally told in the depositions, or any additional evidence should be translated to the accused, even though he may be indifferent upon the matter or might not wish it. It is not suggested in this case that any additional evidence could have been given or any light thrown upon the case had the evidence which, in fact, followed the depositions been again translated to the accused.” [31] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga meneliti keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang membezakan kedudukan dalam kes Fidelis Daniel Enechukwu (supra) dalam kes Lakshmi Narashimman Sudarrajan v. PP [2018] LNS 287 seperti berikut: S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w “[22] In respect of the interpreter, we found no merits in the submission of learned counsel. The reliance on the case of Fidelis (supra), with respect was misplaced. In Fidelis, the appellant, a Nigerian, requested for a Nigerian interpreter. His request was turned down by the High Court. In the instant appeal, there was no indication that the appellant had ever requested for any interpreter. We noted that the appellant had given evidence in English, in which case the court interpreter was more than competent to translate the proceedings for him. And pursuant to section 114(e) of the Evidence Act 1950, we may presume that the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed by the court, i.e. that the evidence of the witnesses who had testified in Bahasa Malaysia had been duly translated into English to the appellant by the court interpreter.” [32] Dalam kes ini Mahkamah setelah meneliti nota prosiding adalah didapati bahawa perkhidmatan jurubahasa Bangladesh tidak diberikan kepada Pemohon-Pemohon. Nota prosiding juga tidak mencatatkan sebarang petanda yang menunjukkan bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon tidak ingin menggunakan jurubahasa Bangladesh atau meminta Mahkamah menyediakan Jurubahasa Bangladesh. Di samping itu tiada juga catatan yang menunjukkan sebarang tindakan untuk mengesahkan sama ada Pemohon-Pemohon memahami Bahasa Melayu bagi pertuduhan dibacakan kepada Pemohon-Pemohon. S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [33] Sesungguhnya prosiding di mahkamah jenayah perlu dijalankan mengikut peruntukan undang-undang yang diberikan. Hatta dalam pengakuan salah sekalipun hakim dibantu oleh jurubahasa hendaklah memastikan Tertuduh faham dengan pertuduhan yang dikemukakan serta akibat daripada pengakuan yang dibuat. Ini adalah disebabkan ekoran daripada pengakuan salah tersebut Tertuduh boleh dijatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan, denda serta sebatan bergantung kepada kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan. [34] Oleh yang demikian pembacaan pertuduhan perlu dibuat dengan teliti dan teratur serta tidak tergesa-gesa sehingga menyebabkan Tertuduh tidak memahami sebenarnya apakah kesalahan yang dilakukan, hukuman yang bakal dijatuhkan serta kesan dan akibat pengakuan tersebut. Seksyen 173(b) KPJ telah memperuntukkan dengan jelas tanggungjawab Mahkamah untuk memastikan Tertuduh memahami pertuduhan tersebut sebelum menerima pengakuan salah. Ini adalah selari dengan prinsip perbicaraan adil di mana Tertuduh memahami dengan sebenarnya apa yang sedang berlaku di Mahkamah dalam suatu perbicaraan jenayah. Majistret dan hakim yang dibantu oleh jurubahasa tidak boleh mengambil jalan mudah dengan tidak membacakan pertuduhan dengan jelas kepada Tertuduh sehingga menyebabkan timbul salah faham kepada Tertuduh yang menyebabkan akan timbul dakwaan bahawa Tertuduh tidak memahami pertuduhan tersebut disebabkan ianya tidak dibacakan dengan teratur dan Mahkamah tidak memastikan Tertuduh faham kesan dan akibat pengakuan tersebut. S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w [35] Pada hemat Mahkamah keadilan kepada Tertuduh dalam suatu prosiding jenayah adalah lebih penting daripada mengejar angka pelupusan kes-kes jenayah. Keadilan tidak boleh dikorbankan bagi penyelesaian kes-kes jenayah yang tidak dilakukan mengikut peruntukan undang-undang. Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan kadang kala terdapat keadaan di mana Tertuduh perlu diterangkan pertuduhan tersebut dalam bahasa yang difahami oleh Tertuduh sebelum Tertuduh membuat keputusan untuk membuat pengakuan bersalah atau tidak bersalah. Hak Tertuduh yang dijamin di bawah undang-undang perlu dihormati dan diraikan oleh hakim, majistret dan jurubahasa semasa membacakan pertuduhan kepada Tertuduh dengan pematuhan kepada seksyen 173 (b) KPJ tersebut. [36] Sekiranya Mahkamah meletakkan kepentingan keadilan dan melaksanakannya seperti yang diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang Tertuduh akan terjamin hak di bawah undang-undang dan dapat menikmati proses perbicaraan yang adil dan dapat menghargai maksim perundangan “keadilan hendaklah dilaksanakan dan tampak ianya dilaksanakan”. [37] Akhirnya, berdasarkan kepada penelitian nota prosiding, hujahan pihak-pihak Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa terdapatnya ketidaktepatan, ketidakesahan dan ketidakwajaran dalam prosiding di Mahkamah Rendah dalam kes ini. Ia memerlukan Mahkamah ini menggunakan bidang kuasa semakan bagi membetulkan ketidaktepatan, ketidakesahan dan ketidakwajaran tersebut. Oleh itu sabitan dan hukuman yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen S/N PoVe93BLZEm/fereb8y5w diketepikan. Kes ini dikembalikan kepada Mahkamah Sesyen di bawah seksyen seksyen 316 (a) KPJ untuk dibaca pertuduhan di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen terhadap Pemohon-Pemohon. Bertarikh: 10hb. Mei 2024 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Pemohon-Pemohon Iskandar Putra bin Ishak Tetuan Iskandar Putra & Izral Kuala Lumpur Bagi Pihak Responden Ain-Nur ‘Amiyerra Awod Abdullah Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur