the Learned Sessions Court Judge as well as Court interpreter did NOT concoct evidence that the accused understood the Charges that were read and explained to him or that the accused pleaded guilty or he did understand the nature and consequence of the guilty plea or the brief facts. [62] Having said that, I find it is totally unconscionable to accuse the Learned Sessions Court Judge as well as the Court interpreter of such heinous crimes against justice. [89] I found that there is no irregularity, neither impropriety nor any miscarriage of justice [90] I have been invited to exercise my powers in revision of the proceedings in the Court below and for the reasons I have stated above, the invitation is respectfully declined. Our Decisions Ground (a) & (b) Whether the appellant had actually pleaded guilty to the charges with his own mouth, understood the charges, nature and the consequences of his plea withdrawals will be addressed together because both the issues are interrelated. [19] Before we embark upon a detailed consideration on the grounds of appeal, it is pertinent to emphasise that the present learned counsel submitted that it was never their submission that the interpreter and/or the learned Sessions Court Judge had acted in cahoots with each other to concoct a guilty plea for the word concoction connotes a deliberate intention to deceive. Thus, that would put the matter to rest. [20] Reverting to the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued at length that whether the appellant had actually pleaded guilty to the charges must be determined based on the evidence available before the High Court i.e. the CRT recording. [21] To elucidate the point that has been taken, learned counsel took us through the CRT recording to highlight the instances where the learned Judicial Commissioner was said to have wrongly concluded that the appellant must have understood the charges, nature and the consequences of his plea. [22] However, the appellant’s version on the event leading to his plea of guilty was diametrically opposite that of the prosecution’s version. To appreciate the argument that had been raised before us, it is necessary to highlight the relevant part of the learned counsel written submission on the narration of the CRT recording that appears as follows: ** At minute 4:07 of the CRT recording after the interpreter had read in fast pace the elements of the rape charge against the appellant sans the punishment prescribed by the laws, the interpreter then asked the appellant if he understood (faham) the elements. To this question, the CRT recording shows that the appellant did not answer. ** At minute 4:19 of the CRT recording, the interpreter then proceeded to explain the punishment of the rape charge to the appellant. Without asking the appellant whether he understood the punishment, the interpreter straight away asked him whether he wished to plead guilty. The CRT recording again shows that the appellant did not answer, the interpreter did not repeat the plea of the appellant and that the learned Sessions Court Judge was coughing, reading the documents before him and not focusing his attention on the appellant. ** At minute 5:00 of the CRT recording, after reading the armed robbery charge to the appellant at fast pace, this time, the interpreter asked the appellant 'faham eh?' and without waiting for the appellant’s answer, the interpreter swiftly proceeded to read out the relevant punishment. In the CRT recording, the learned Sessions Court Judge was seen writing on certain documents and did not focus on the appellant. ** At minute 5:10 of the of the CRT recording, after the interpreter read to the appellant the punishment for the armed robbery charge, the interpreter, again, did not ask the appellant if he had understood the punishment. Instead, the interpreter straight away asked the appellant if he wished to plead guilty. The CRT Recording shows that there was no verbal answer from the appellant. ** Starting from minute 6:00 until 11:00 of the CRT recording, the interpreter was seen reading out the facts of the case (fakta kes) without any pause and only invited appellant to confirm the same by asking "betul (correct)?" at the end. Again, the CRT Recording recorded no verbal response from the Appellant and the learned Sessions Court Judge appears to be seen busy writing notes on the documents in front of him at this material time. [23] From the net effect of the alleged serious infirmities above, learned counsel strenuously contended that the High Court sitting on appeal had fallen into error in failing to carefully consider whether the appellant has fully understood the nature of the charges to which he pleaded guilty and that it was unsafe for the Sessions Court to accept the appellant’s pleas in the circumstances as explained above. [24] With respect, we beg to differ. Even though the CRT recording failed to capture some of the voices during the proceeding and there were occasions where we could not exactly hear what was verbally said by the appellant through his own mouth after the charges and the material facts of the charges were read to the appellant but through his gesture, such as nodding his head and body gestures it is very clear to us that that the appellant had indeed vocalized his guilty plea, which was then relayed by the Court Interpreter to the Sessions Judge. [25] From our careful observation and examination of the CRT recording we can hear and also see the court interpreter reading certain documents to the appellant and the appellant was seen listening attentively to what was read by the interpreter. Hence, we can safely conclude that the communication between the interpreter and the appellant were all within the range of distance which is possible to be heard by the learned Sessions Court Judge, appellant’s counsel and deputy public prosecutor as to what was really said by the appellant. Thus, there can be no doubt in our mind that that the appellant had also understood the charges and the nature and the consequences of his plea. [26] Moreover, the appellant was represented by counsel assigned by the National Legal Aid Foundation (YBGK) who was there to protect the legal rights and interests of the appellant in court. However, the learned counsel for the appellant never raised any objection as to the alleged non- verbalising of the appellant’s pleas of guilt to both charges and the appellant understanding of the nature and the consequence of his plea. [27] From the above explanation given by this Honourable Court and after having viewed the CRT recording played in the open court as well as perused over the Appeal Records, we found ourselves in agreement with the learned Judicial Commissioner’s findings on this point. There was no basis to rule that there were serious irregularities in the proceedings at the Sessions Court which warranted the High Court to exercise its revisionary power. [28] For completeness, we also found it necessary to deal with the other related issue not addressed by the both parties in their written and oral submission before us. However, the learned Judicial Commissioner had comprehensively deliberated it in his grounds of judgment. This is with regard to the delay in making the present application. We will now lay down our stand. [29] As we have stated earlier, on 25/10/2020, the appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court. He had the opportunity to lodged an appeal against the order made by the Sessions Court but failed to do within the prescribed timeframe. However, only in August 2021 the appellant applied to the High Court at Muar for revision under section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In short, the revision was not done at the first possible moment and it took ten (10) months after the appeal period had lapsed for the appellant to seek invocation of the revisionary powers of the High Court. [30] When dealing with this issue, we can do no better than refer to the case of Mohd Dalhar bin Redzuan & Anor v. Datuk Bandar, Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur [1995] 2 CLJ 209, where the Court of Appeal speaking through Gopal Sri Ram JCA (Haji Shaik Daud JCA, concurring) held as follows: The second principle of settled law is that, save in exceptional cases and for very good reasons, there can be no resort had by a party to the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court when the decision complained of is appealable and no appeal has been lodged: Dorai Manickam v. R [1936] MLJ 261. [31] Later, in the case of Muzammil Izat Hashim v. PP [2009] 2 CLJ 354, the Court of Appeal through judgment delivered by Hasan Lah JCA stated the following: [8] In his judgment the learned High Court Judge referred to and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in PP v. Raymond Chia Kim Chwee & Anor [1985] 2 MLJ 436 where it was held inter alia that a decision or order made under s. 51 of the Code is a final order in the sense that it is final in its effect and therefore appealable under s. 307 of the Code. The other case referred to by the learned High Court Judge in his judgment Dorai Manickam v. R [1936] MLJ 261 where it was held that where a party to criminal proceedings who has had the opportunity to appeal neglects, without very good reasons, so to do, he will not be allowed to call in aid the High Court’s revisionary powers. .... [12] Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the principle of law stated in Dorai Manickam’s case is a bad law because the High Court is conferred with extensive powers of revision in criminal proceedings under s. 323 of the Code and s. of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and alternatively he submitted that Dorai Manickam’s case does not set out that principle of law at all. We found no merit in that argument. Suffice to say that it has been accepted as settled law that except for very good reasons the High Court should not exercise its revisionary powers when a decision complained of is appealable and no appeal has been lodged. [32] In PP v. Sogas Trading [2020] 4 CLJ 410, the High Court held as follows: [17] It is well established law that the court will generally exercise its revisionary powers where the lower court fails to comply with the provisions of the law, the decision is grossly erroneous, the findings of fact are not supported by evidence, material evidence of the parties are not considered, there has been an error of law or procedure and where the revision is demanded in the interest of public interest. The primary objective of a revision is to correct a miscarriage of justice which has affected the applicant and the High Court’s powers of revision are to be exercised sparingly and judiciously. [18] The application for revision must be done at the first possible moment and not after other methods of procedure have been unsuccessfully adopted (Dorai Manickam Alias Davis v. Rex [1936] 1 LNS 12; [1936] 1 MLJ 209). As also stated in Dorai Manickam’s (supra) case, where an applicant has had the opportunity to appeal but neglects to do so, the court should not exercise its powers of revision unless there are very good reasons for that neglect: It is not desirable or possible to lay down hard and fast rules as to when this Court will or will not exercise its powers of revision under section 312A of the Code. Each case must be decided according to its own circumstances. It may, however, be laid down as a broad and general rule that where a party to criminal proceedings has had the opportunity to appeal under section 293 or section 295 of the Code but neglects, without very good reasons, so to do he will not be allowed to invoke the provisions of section 312A and, moreover, that where it is proper that application be made to the Court to exercise its powers under that section the application should be made at the first possible moment and not merely as a forlorn hope after other methods of procedure have been unsuccessfully adopted. [22] Based upon the principles of law stated above, it is clear that the applicant must provide very good reasons as to why the appeal was not filed and why no extension of time was filed. Only when such reasons are acceptable would then this court be moved to consider the merits of the application. [24] Although an applicant is not estopped from filing an application for revision in preference to an appeal such a step is usually taken when the issue that is to be adjudicated upon is one that demands urgency due to a huge public interest or outcry in the matter (see PP v. Rozita Mohamad Ali [2018] 9 CLJ 265; [2018] AMR 843). No such factor of urgency was presented to this court for this application. This application came four months after the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge was made. This court therefore views this application as an attempt to gain a back door access to this court’s powers of revision and in that process expecting that this court caters to the applicant’s whims who initially decided to not appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge and then later changed its mind. Such an attempt is not welcomed. [25] Based on the reasons stated above, this court decides to not exercise its powers to review the decision of the learned SC Judge. [33] In the same vein, we held that the appellant’s application to seek the revisionary powers of the High Court when he had failed to appeal against an order made by the Sessions Court under section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code would disentitle the appellant to the relief that he seeks through the revisionary powers of the High Court under section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Conclusion [34] For all the reasons given, we do not find any appealable error in the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner in dismissing the application for revision. [35] Having viewed the CRT recording and looking at his grounds of decision, we find that the learned Judicial Commissioner had exercised his discretion judiciously and we find no substantial and compelling reasons for us to interfere with the judgment. [36] We therefore unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence meted out by the Sessions Court, which was affirmed by the High Court. Date: 8 May 2024 - sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Counsel For the Appellant : Lau Yi Leong (Bersamanya Lim Jia Xian) [Ling & Yi Leong (Petaling Jaya)] For the Respondents : Atiqah Abdul Karim @ Husaini [Deputy Public Prosecutor]