Pendakwa Raya v Muhammad Solihin Bin Abdul Rahman (42S-20-4/2017)

The Accused/Appellant was charged at the court below for having in his possession in a public place, a dangerous weapon, that was a knife, without lawful excuse or authority, an offence under Section 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 (Act 357) punishable under the same section. 2

The Accused/Appellant was convicted after a full trial. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment from the date of the sentence on 30/3/2017.

Dissatisfied, the Accused/Appellant filed an appeal on sentence to this court.

After hearing submissions by both parties, this court allowed the appeal on sentence whereby the accused was released under a bond of good behaviour for 5 years in 1 surety of RM5000 under section 294 Criminal Procedure Code.

Dissatisfied with the decision of this court, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal in respect of the inadequacy of sentence to the Court of Appeal.

Herewith are the grounds for that decision regarding sentence only.

The charge preferred against the Accused was as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 18/4/2015 jam lebih kurang 06.00 pagi di hadapan CIMB Bank Bandar Baru Kubang Kerian, Jalan Sultanah Zainab II, Kota Bharu, di dalam Negeri Kelantan telah didapati dalam milik kamu satu senjata berbahaya iaitu sebilah pisau berhulu kayu sepanjang 10 cm yang dibalut dengan kain jeans warna biru di dalam poket seluar bahagian hadapan tanpa maksud yang sah. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum 3 di bawah seksyen 6(1) Akta Kakisan dan Letupan dan Senjata Berbahaya 1958.” C. THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the Prosecution’s case can be gleaned from the finding of the trial judge at Page 15 of Jilid 1 of the Appeal Record which are reproduced below: “Keterangan pihak pendakwaan ialah pada 18.4.2015, jam lebih kurang 6.00 pagi, semasa SP1, SP2 bersama dengan 2 orang anggota polls yang lain semasa bertugas membuat rondaan cegah jenayah telah tiba di hadapan CIMB Bandar Baru Kubang Kerian. SP1 telah nampak 2 orang lelaki Melayu dalam keadaan mencurigakan iaitu berlegar-legar di hadapan CIMB bank dengan menaiki sebuah motorsikal bernombor pendaftaran WRW 3046. SP1 telah memperkenalkan diri sebagai anggota polis dan tiba-tiba 2 orang lelaki tersebut bertindak melarikan diri. Semasa cubaan melarikan diri motorsikal telah terjatuh. SP1 , SP2 dan anggota polls yang lain telah mengejar kedua-dua lelaki tersebut dan berlaku pergelutan sebelum kedua lelaki tersebut dapat ditangkap. Tangkapan dibuat di lorong belakang bank. Semasa pemeriksaan dilakukan ke atas lelaki yang dicamkan sebagai OKT, SP1 telah menjumpai sebilah pisau berhulu kayu warna coklat (P3) yang mempunyai kepanjangan 10 cm dari hulu hingga ke hujung dibalut dengan kain jeans warna biru (P4) di dalam poket hadapan sebeiah kanan seluar jeans jenama G Star berwarna biru gelap (P2) yang dipakai oleh OKT. SP2 ada bersama SPJ ketika pemeriksaan 4 tersebut. SP1 telah membawa OKT dan seorang lagi lelaki yang ditahan iaitu Ashfizul bin Zakri bersama dengan barang-barang kes ke Balai Polis dan menyerahkannya kepada Pegawai Penyiasat (SP3), SP1 telah membuat laporan polis (P5).” D. FINDINGS OF THE SESSION’S JUDGE ON SENTENCE

The learned judge made a brief ground on his finding regarding sentence at page 28 of the Appeal Record where he said: “Mahkamah telah meneliti dan mempertimbangkan faktor-faktor rayuan yang dikemukakan oleh peguambela OKT dan hujahan pemberatan hukuman oleh pihak pendakwaan. Mahkamah berpendapat selain dari menimbangkan faktor-faktor rayuan berkenaan kepentingan OKT iaitu kesalahan pertama, keinsafan, menjaga ibu yang tua dan sakit serta mempunyai masa depan yang cerah, Mahkamah juga hendaklah menimbangkan faktor kepentingan awam. Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 6(1) Akta Bahan Kakisan Letupan Dan Senjata Berbahaya 1958 ini adalah satu kesalahan yang serius. lni dapat digambarkan oleh hukuman penjara tidak kurang dari 5 tahun dan tidak lebih dari 10 tahun serta boleh dikenakan sebatan. Kes membawa senjata berbahaya di tempat awam berleluasa sekarang. lanya boleh mendatangkan bahaya kepada orang awam. Mahkamah berpendapat faktor kepentingan awam melebihi dari faktor kepentingan OKT. Kes ini telah selesal secara perbicaraan dan bukannya secara pengakuan salah. lni berbeza dengan kes yang dirujuk oleh peguambela OKT. 5 Hukuman yang wajar dijatuhkan adalah hukuman yang dapat memberikan pengajaran kepada OKT dan orang lain agar tidak melakukan kesalahan tersebut lagi.”

It is to be noted that this section (section 6) was quite recently amended which amendment came into force effective 2nd July 2014. Prior to that amendment, offenders were charged only in the Magistrates Courts and it was not uncommon for offenders to be given a one day imprisonment or a bound over only as the maximum sentence allowed then was an imprisonment not exceeding 2 years and to whipping.

To appreciate the old and the new amended provision, this court found it germane to distinguish them: The previous provision reads: “6

Any person who in any public road or place carries or has in his possession or under his control any offensive weapon otherwise 6 than with lawful authority or for a lawful purpose shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than ten years, and to whipping.” [12] The amended provision, is worded “shall be liable”, similar to the previous provision. The terms “shall be punished” and “be liable to be punished” were subjected to much judicial discussions.(see PP v Wahab

1 MLJ 265; Jayanthan v PP (1973) 2 MLJ 68; Malirus v PP (1992) 1 MLJ 561; Goh Kheng Seng v PP (1993) 1 MLJ 103; PP v Man Bin Ismail (1939) MLJ 161; PP v Nordin Yusmadi (1996) 2 CLJ 90; PP v Leonard Glenn Franci (1989) 2 MLJ 158. [13] However the Court of Appeal in the case of PP v Hassan Ali (unreported) (infra) had decided that the amended provision carries a meaning of mandatory five years minimum imprisonment with a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. [14] That begs the next question as to whether by virtue of the amended provision, can a bound over or bond of good behavior under section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code be imposed? [15] This court had occasion to analyse on this matter in the case of Kamarusham Zakaria v PP (2018) 2 CLJ 328 where this court had referred to the Hansard and said at pages 333 and 334. “At page 81 of the Hansard dated 10/4/2014 it is stated: 7 “Pertama, Yang Berhormat menyebut persoalan hukuman yang kita letak di sini sebagai mempunyai minimum sentence dan tidak boleh dihukum kurang daripada itu dan maksimumnya memang kita tahu. Semua yang mempunyai latihan sebagai peguam Yang Berhormat, bila melihat perkara ini berlaku kita berasa bimbang kerana tidak ada memberi laluan budi bicara kepada pihak hakim semasa menjalankan kes itu di mahkamah. Akan tetapi biarlah saya mula dengan sedikit mukadimah. Sebenarnya walaupun dalam undang-undang ini mengatakan bahawa minimum sentence itu berapa tahun dan maksimumnya berapa tahun. Maknanya kalau dia didapati bersalah di bawah undang-undang ini, hukuman yang bakal hakim beri kepada dia ialah minimum tetapi dalam masa yang sama Tuan Pengerusi, kuasa mahkamah dalam mengenakan hukuman kepada pesalah, dalam sudut lain tidak pernah diambil. Umpamanya di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang mana mahkamah boleh memberi bon berkelakuan baik, sama tempoh yang ditetapkan oleh mahkamah.” [penekanan ditambah] Hence, it is patently clear that the intention of the Parliament is to enable a person convicted under this provision to be permitted to be released on bond for good behavior, according to the satisfaction of 8 the court. This was also affirmed in the case of PP v Hassan Ali (supra), where the Court of Appeal had affirmed the order of bound over under section 294 CPC handed down by the High Court. Back to the instant case, this court would like to reiterate that the amendment was to curb the rising number of organised serious crimes such as using firearms and dangerous weapons in robbery, murder, extortion, gangland fights etc. although such elements were not borne out from the facts of this case.” [16] This court would like to impress upon parties that the order of bound over did not at all exonerate an Accused person of the offence committed as he was still convicted but only that the sentence was suspended and the conviction recorded and will form part of his criminal record [see Kamarusham Zakaria (supra), Nor Afizal Azizan (2012) 6 CLJ 370]. [17] Hence it is not uncommon for courts in Malaysia including the Court of Appeal, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case to give an order of bound over for this offence. As an example, in the case of PP v Hassan Ali Abdul Razak (2016) 9 CLJ 584, the High Court gave an order of bound over under section 294 CPC and was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Likewise in the case of PP v Wan Hasrul Nizam Wan Hizamuddin (2017) 4 CLJ 389, the Sessions Court ordered a bound over under section 294(1) of the CPC. On appeal by the Public Prosecutor, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of bound over. 9 [18] From the line of authorities adverted to earlier, a bound over order seems to be the trend of sentencing adopted by the courts, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. [19] Back to the instant case, the Accused was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. This court had perused the grounds of judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and found it germane to interfere. This court found on analysis, the sentence of 5 years imprisonment was too harsh and crushing in the circumstances of the case. [20] The amendment to the provision as alluded to earlier was to curb the increasing number of serious organized crime, such as gang robbery, use of firearms, gang fight, gangland murder etc, as mentioned in the Hansard. [21] This court had occasion to describe the scenario if at all the weapon/s were meant for such organized crime in the case of Kamarusham (supra) thus: “There were no such scenario as samurai swords found in the boot of the car he was assumed driving with few others inside, which could signify that he and the rest had just come back from a gang fight; or a blood stained parang, or long knife found on him, which could all be inferred that the accused had stabbed someone after a fight or a robbery etc.” 10 [22] Reverting back to the case at hand, there were also no such scenarios as described above. The Accused was merely found having in his possession of the said weapon as described in the charge sheet in his front pocket of his trousers whilst standing in front of the CIMB Bank. There wasn’t any proof that earlier, he was involved in a gang fight. Neither was there any proof of there was a brawl or a robbery earlier and the weapon was used and it was still blood stained. [23] Further, the Accused/Appellant was only 24 years of age at the time this offence was committed. As quite a young person, some consideration should be given, (see Tukiran Taib v PP (1955) MLJ 24) as being imprisoned or too long in prison will do more harm than good, as he would become a hardened criminal as he would be exposed to many criminals such as rapists, robbers, drug traffickers and the likes in the prison. Hence he should be given the opportunity to spare the prison sentence and to mend himself and thereafter turn over a new leaf. This court found that he has the potential to be a good citizen as most of his siblings are teachers and businessmen who would be in good positions to monitor his activities. Further, public interest which was of paramount importance itself warrants that the sentence to be imposed on this type of criminal should be one that could induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. In the words of Hashim Yeop Sani, High Court Judge Malaya as he then was in the case of Loo Choo Fatt (supra) who said: 11 “The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living”. [24] Further the Accused/Appellant was a first offender. He has no criminal record. He was also remorseful and had also repented. The Accused/Appellant is also taking care of her aged mother as his father had died at the age of 70 in 2016. [25] Finally the Court was of the considered opinion that against the backdrop of the reasons behind the amendment of this provision and that the Accused/Appellant did not fall in any of those categories of criminals as alluded to earlier and the fact that he had gone through a series of imprisonment (including remand) by the time this appeal reached this court, the Accused/Appellant had learnt enough of what was like to be in prison and had since repented. This was clearly borne out from the submissions of the learned counsel, both at the court below and before this court. [26] Unfortunately whilst public interest supercede personal interest of the Accused/Appellant the learned judge did not give significant consideration on those factors which warranted appellate intervention. 12 F. CONCLUSION [27] For the aforesaid reasons, this court found that in the circumstances of the case, the Accused should be given a bound over and be released under a bond of good behaviour for 5 years of RM5000 in one surety under section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the upshot, the appeal by the Accused/Appellant was allowed and the order of the Session’s Judge was accordingly set aside. Order accordingly. Dated: 20 May 2018 (DATO’ AHMAD BIN BACHE) Judge High Court of Malaya Kota Bharu 13 Counsel: Advocate & Solicitor of : Mr. Cheah Poh Loon the Appellant Messrs P L Cheah & Co., No. 3850, Jalan Hamzah Kota Bharu, Kelantan Deputy Public Prosecutor : DPP Puan Shaharaliza Binti Ab Razak For the Respondent Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah, Kota Darulnaim, 15050 Kota Bharu, Kelantan