Rayuan Pendakwaan ditolak. [3] Basis for this court to review the sentencing appeal and to have arrived at the above decision is contained herein. This case involves a defendant practicing dentistry and operating a clinic without a S/N tF017Mjcfk6ni1YMbh6Ikg license. Ultimately this court has decided to uphold the Magistrate's decision to order good behaviour bond or referred to simply as binding over, rather than jail or a fine, though the duration of that bond is now extended to ten (10) years. Background and Nature of Charges [4] The defendant faced two specific charges regarding the illegal provision of medical services: • Section 62(1) of the Dental Act 2018 (Act 804): Practicing dentistry without being a registered practitioner. • Section 4(1) of the Private Health Care Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586): Operating a private healthcare facility without the required licence. Both offences are deemed to be of strict liability, as the prosecution need not prove intent (mens rea), but only that the act occurred (actus reus). The law allows for severe penalties for these charges, including fines up to RM300,000 or imprisonment for up to six years or both. (See section 62 (3) of Act 804 and 5 (1) (a) (i) of Act 586) The Magistrate’s Initial Sentencing [5] Upon the defendant’s immediate plea of guilt, the Magistrate opted for a good behaviour bond under section 294 of the Criminal S/N tF017Mjcfk6ni1YMbh6Ikg Procedure Code (CPC/Act593) for a duration of six years, for commission of both offences, thus to take effect concurrently. This is a non-custodial sentence, meaning the defendant remains in the community rather than going to prison, provided she follow strict conditions. Reasoning of this Court [6] In reviewing the appeal against this sentence, this court considered the following key factors: • Non-Custodial Preference: It is noted that the relevant Acts (804 and 586) do not mandate jail time as a primary punishment; it prioritize fines. Therefore, it was within the judicial discretion of the magistrate not to impose a prison sentence. • Nature of the Harm: While the defendant's actions were criminal and potentially dangerous, this court takes notice of the fact that specific services rendered, i.e. fitting braces were less intrusive than surgery, aligning more with the work of a dental technician. However, lack of an official licence or registration with the Ministry of Health remains a serious breach of public safety. S/N tF017Mjcfk6ni1YMbh6Ikg The Utility of Section 294 CPC [7] A variation of the bond of good behaviour under section 173A of the CPC is provided under section 294 CPC. However, unlike section 173A, the defendant is convicted first before a bond of good behaviour is considered by the magistrate under section 294. Naturally, section 294 is applicable to offences of a more serious category where a record of the offending is necessary. Nevertheless, the defendant yet again remains with the community and will be free from any fetters once the bond period expires and she has complied with all the conditions stipulated. In any case, on breach of a bond of good behaviour executed under section 294, the court may issue a warrant for her apprehension. Once apprehended the defendant would be brought before the court which dealt with her original offence. If the court accepts her explanation or answer to her conduct relating to the alleged breach of the bond, the bond of good behaviour earlier executed continues. Where such a breach is clearly made out, the bond of good behaviour is cancelled and the court can proceed to sentence the defendant as it deems appropriate. Hence, in sum total, an order of binding over under section 294 CPC has deterrent effect on the defendant. It is for the Law Enforcement officials from the Health S/N tF017Mjcfk6ni1YMbh6Ikg Ministry to monitor her conduct during the bond period which currently stands extended to ten (10) years. Undoubtedly, she does not have to pay a pecuniary penalty which is the fine or go into prison for the offence she has committed, but placing her under a bond of good behaviour is an effective non-custodial option of sentencing, for the defendant to always realise that she is bound by the conditions of the bond, primarily not to reoffend at any point of time. [8] Therefore, unlike section 173A, which has the effect of a discharge without conviction, section 294 requires a formal conviction to be recorded. This ensures the defendant has a criminal record, ensuring it still has deterrent effect on her, while still allowing for rehabilitation within the community. [9] It is emphasized that a bond is not a free pass. If the defendant reoffends or breaches any conditions, the court could issue a warrant of arrest and resentence her for the original crime, potentially exposing the defendant to a maximum fine or jail time. [10] A significant factor in the decision by this court is the timeline. The offences were committed in the year 2022 and the original sentence was passed in 2024, but the appeal was not heard until 2025. The prosecution has to take the blame for failing to expedite the hearing. As much time had already passed, this court takes the position, it S/N tF017Mjcfk6ni1YMbh6Ikg would be too late in the day and inherently unfair to impose a heavy fine or prison sentence now, after the defendant had already been living under the conditions of the bond. Final Order and Variation [11] Poser to this court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction is, if the sentence meted out is grossly inadequate. Is the sentence passed outside the scope of normal discretionary limits, to enable this court to say that its imposition must have involved an error of law of some description? This court would not interfere with the sentence passed on the basis that there is a possibility or probability that another court similarly circumstanced would have imposed a different sentence. That would be per se insufficient to warrant appellate interference. (See Bhandulananda Jayatilake v PP (1982) 1 MLJ 83 FC). [12] Scrutinising the grounds of judgment by the magistrate demonstrates that she had embarked on a curial scrutiny of the all the aggravating factors existent in the case as well as the plea in mitigation by the defendant. After considering all material factors, she had arrived at the order of binding over, which is a sentence passed according to law. The sentence meted out: • is within the ambit of the penal provision providing for the punishment. S/N tF017Mjcfk6ni1YMbh6Ikg • was not only after considering the mitigating factors, but with full consciousness that the offence is serious in nature, has an effect on the public at large and also that it is an offence of strict criminal liability. Thus, public interest is taken into consideration. • with the foremost consideration in in her mind that the defendant had pleaded guilty at once when the charges were read to her, which is a prevailing factor, as it indicates remorse on her part and acceptance that what she had committed is not permissible by the law. [13] Ensuing from the above, the sentence passed is found to be not grossly inadequate or legally erroneous. Following the binding precedent and an oft-quoted authority Bhandulananda Jayatilake v PP (1982) 1 MLJ 83 FC, this court had refused to interfere simply because another judge might have chosen a different punishment. [14] Thus, the conviction and the use of a good behaviour bond is affirmed but varied, wherein duration of the bond is increased from six (6) years to ten (10) years. Two fresh set of sureties or guarantors for her good behaviour is ordered with no requirement of any cash deposit. This extension ensures the law enforcement officials from the Ministry of Health has a decade-long window to S/N tF017Mjcfk6ni1YMbh6Ikg monitor the defendant’s conduct, providing a long-term deterrent against reoffending. [15] In sum total, the sentence meted out by the magistrate is fair, reasonable and proportional to her conduct of breaching the law. On that score, the appeal against sentence by the prosecution was dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Order of binding over affirmed with variation. Dated 26 December 2025 SGD Muniandy Kannyappan Judge, High Court 2 (Criminal) Kuala Lumpur Parties DPP Izalina Hj Abdullah of the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) for and on behalf of the Public Prosecutor/Appellant. Respondent appeared in person. S/N tF017Mjcfk6ni1YMbh6Ikg