BAHAWA KAMU PADA 26/01/2026, JAM LEBIH KURANG 15 TENGAH MALAM, DI RUMAH NOMBOR 452, BLOK 20, FELDA AIR TAWAR 3, DI DALAM DAERAH KOTA TINGGI, DI DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, TELAH DIDAPATI DALAM MILIKAN KAMU SENJATA BERBAHAYA IAITU SEBILAH PEDANG SAMURAI BERSARUNG KAYU BERUKURAN LEBIH KURANG 76CM TANPA KEBENARAN YANG SAH. OLEH ITU, KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 7(1) AKTA BAHAN-BAHAN KAKISAN DAN LETUPAN DAN SENJATA BERBAHAYA 1958 (AKTA 357). HUKUMAN : PENJARA UNTUK SUATU TEMPOH TIDAK KURANG DARIPADA LIMA TAHUN DAN TIDAK MELEBIHI SEPULUH TAHUN DAN DISEBAT. [10] A charge sheet must clearly and accurately reflect the offence and the punishment prescribed by statute. Any deviation risks misleading the accused and undermining the fairness of the proceedings. In this case, the inclusion of whipping in the charge sheet was a misstatement of law. Authorities [11] In PP v Low Ah Sang [1962] MLJ 13 at p 15, Hashim J observed: “I shall now deal with the charge and the order of the learned President. In my opinion the charge was very badly drafted. In this respect I would commend all presidents of sessions courts and magistrates to read and digest the observations of the learned Chief Justice. In his oral judgment in PP v Syed Bakri (Ipoh Criminal Revision No 3 of 1955, unreported) his Lordship said:” ‘I have repeatedly emphasized that in framing charges prosecution officers should adhere as closely as possible to the wording of the statute constituting the offence which is charged and the magistrates should be at pains to see that this is done. If it is done, the prosecution know what they have to prove and the accused person knows what is charged against him. If it is not done, then there is the danger of a muddle of the sort that has come to light in this case, ‘as it has come to light in this appeal.’” [12] In Subramaniam & Anor v PP [1976] 1 MLJ 76 at p 78, Ajaib Singh J stated, he has this to say in respect of the seriousness of the administration of criminal justice: “The framing of the charges in this case and the subsequent conduct of the proceedings in court left much to be desired. The administration of criminal law is not to be treated light-heartedly but is to be carried out seriously with a sense of dedication and with great care and attention.” [13] In Mee Lian Co v PP [1962] MLJ 131, Adams J emphasised on the role of the Court in respect of a charge: “I must yet again draw the attention of prosecuting officers to the necessity of drafting correct charges against the correct person and also of proving to the satisfaction of the court all the ingredients of the charge. Finally, it is the duty of the court to see that the charge is properly drawn at the time it is read and explained to the defendant. This clearly could not have been done in this case.” [14] In PP v LKI Holidays Leisure Sdn Bhd [1998] 1 MLJ 315 at 320, Mohd Hishamudin J remarked: “This observation has been bothering me for quite some time and I think I should take the opportunity here to comment that prosecuting officers should not take the task of drafting charges lightly. The attitude that drafting charges is a mere mechanical task ought to be discarded. Prosecuting officers should take the task seriously. They should be meticulous and at the same time ensure that the provision of ss 152, 153 and 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) (‘the CPC’) are strictly adhered to. They should, from time to time, seek the advice of the public prosecutor, especially when it concerns the drafting of less common offences (for instance, like the one in the present case). Magistrates too are under a duty to ensure at the commencement of any criminal case before them that the charge has been properly drafted. Should it come to the notice of the presiding magistrate that the charge is defective, he should promptly bring it to the attention of the prosecuting officer, and thereafter take the necessary measures to rectify the defect. Let me remind magistrates and prosecuting officers of the advice of Thomson J (who later became our first Lord President) given more than 40 years ago. In his oral judgment in PP v Syed Bakri (Ipoh Criminal Revision No 3 of 1955, unreported) (supra) [15] However, it must be emphasised that an appellate court should not overly interfere, as was held in Leong Ka Kong v PP [1976] 2 MLJ 21 at 22, by Abdul Hamid: “In so far as this court is concerned, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, it shall consider whether the sentences of the court below were wrong in law or were they manifestly excessive on the facts and circumstances justifying interference. It is settled law that sentences should not be interfered with by the appellate court merely because the individual presiding in the higher court might, having personal view on the matter, have passed a different sentence.” “Our system, as practised today, has vested the magistrates and presidents with wide discretionary power in the matter of the amount of punishment. Such discretionary power must not, however, be exercised in complete disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case. In point of fact, the discretion must be exercised judicially. Now, in consideration of what I have said, the court should not therefore interfere with the lower court's discretion unless there is apparent on the fact of the record a manifest error either in law, or, in considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” [16] The Sessions Court had imposed whipping in addition to imprisonment. This was based on an erroneous charge sheet which incorrectly stated that whipping was part of the punishment under Section 7(1). The Sessions Court, by adopting the defective charge, exceeded its jurisdiction and imposed a sentence not authorised by law. [17] The Applicant was unrepresented at the Sessions Court. It was therefore incumbent upon the presiding judge to ensure that the Applicant fully understood the nature of the charge, the facts supporting it, and the precise punishment prescribed by law. It appears that this was not done and it was carried out mechanically relying merely on the defective charge sheet. [18] The Court of Appeal in Shaiful Azmi bin Sabri v PP [2020] 6 MLJ 578, the Court of Appeal found that misstatement of sentencing provisions amounted to an error in law. [19] Meanwhile, in Heng Kim Khoon v PP [1972] 1 MLJ 30, Sharma J held: “The charges were read over and according to the record they were explained to and understood by the accused and he pleaded guilty thereto. He admitted the facts but in mitigation stated that the exhibits were not his and that they had been left behind by a friend of his. Proof of ‘possession’ was the very essential ingredient of those offences and in spite of what the accused said the learned president found him guilty and convicted him on the two charges. A plea of guilty may be accepted by the court and the accused convicted on it but the court is not bound to accept a plea of guilty in all cases. The court must carefully consider whether the accused has fully understood the nature of the charge to which he pleads guilty. The accused is not to be taken at his word when he pleads guilty unless the plea is expressed in unmistakable terms with full appreciation of the essential ingredients of the offence. This rule of law is applied with all the greater stringency when the offence charged is complicated or serious. Sharma J further stated: A plea of guilty only amounts to an admission that the accused committed the acts alleged against him and not an admission of the guilt under a particular section of the Act. If he pleads guilty under an erroneous view of the law his conviction cannot stand. In such a case the plea of guilty does not avail because he cannot be said to have committed the offence in question in the eyes of the law.” Analysis [20] It is evident that the Sessions Court imposed a sentence of whipping in addition to imprisonment. However, Section 7(1) of Act 357 prescribes only imprisonment. The inclusion of whipping in the charge sheet was a misstatement of law, and the Sessions Court, by adopting the erroneous charge, exceeded its jurisdiction. This constitutes an error of law, warranting revision under Sections 31, 35, and 325 CPC. [21] This Court would reiterate that judicial officers must exercise vigilance in scrutinising a charge sheet and are duty bound to do so. It is their judicial responsibility. They should not depend entirely on what is stated in the charge sheet without verifying its conformity with the statute rather than relying mechanically on what is drafted by the prosecution. [22] They cannot abdicate their responsibility and the court must verify that charges conform strictly to statutory provisions before accepting a plea or passing sentence. [23] As highlighted in Mee Lian Co v PP and PP v LKI Holidays Leisure Sdn Bhd, it is the duty of the court to ensure that charges are properly drawn and explained. Blind reliance on defective charges risks unlawful convictions and sentences, as had occurred in this case. [24] This Court reiterates that charges and sentences must strictly follow statutory provisions to avoid miscarriage of justice. Greater caution should be exercised when an accused is unrepresented, as was in this case. Judicial officers must remain alert to errors in charge sheets and sentencing provisions to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system and prevent unlawful punishment. [25] This court commends the Prisons Department officers who have acted responsibly in identifying the error and filing this revision application. Had they carried out the whipping sentence without scrutiny, the Applicant would have suffered great injustice and irreparable harm from a punishment not authorised by law. Their vigilance prevented a miscarriage of justice. Conclusion [26] In exercising its revisionary powers under Section 325 CPC, this Court: