Sheila Sharon A/P Steven Kumar v Pendakwa Raya (B-07-89-09/2023)

It is pertinent to set out briefly the chronology of events in order to appreciate the factual matrix of the case.

On 26/6/2023, the applicant was charged in the Magistrate’s Court at Selayang, Selangor under charge sheet No. BD-82-6-06/2023 with two offences under section 506 and 509 of the Penal Code respectively. The charges preferred reads as follows: First Charge “Bahawa kamu pada 15/6/2023 jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengahari bertempat di No. 8 Jalan SG 1/1, Taman Sri Gombak, di dalam Daerah Gombak, di dalam Negeri Selangor telah didapati melakukan ugutan jenayah ke atas satu perempuan India bernama Silverkoomarie a/p Muthiah, KPT No: 540725-08-5476 dengan niat untuk mendatangkan kegentaran kepada orang itu. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 509 Kanun Keseksaan. S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Second Charge “Bahawa kamu pada 15/6/2023 jam lebih kurang 1.00 tengahari bertempat di No. 8 Jalan SG 1/1, Taman Sri Gombak, di dalam Daerah Gombak, di dalam Negeri Selangor dengan niat untuk menghina kesopanan penama Taneswaran a/l Palaraman KPT No: 821030-14-6229 dengan berkata “You tenguk badan you, gemuk botak dan badak sumbu.” Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 506 Kanun Keseksaan.

The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the charges. The applicant was released on bail.

Immediately thereafter, two (2) similar and same offences under section 506 and section 509 of the Penal Code under charge sheet No: BD-82-8-06/2023 were levelled against the applicant. The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the charges.

However, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor then applied to withdraw the two offences under the charge sheet No:BD-82-8- 06/2023 without giving any reasons for the said withdrawal and requested for a Discharge Not Amounting to An Acquittal (DNAA).

The defence objected and requested for a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DNA).

After hearing both parties, the learned Magistrate allowed the defence application and ordered that the applicant be discharge S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 amounting to an acquittal on the second two similar and same charges under the charge sheet No:BD-82-8-06/2023.

After almost 1½ months from the decision of the learned Magistrates, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor has written a letter dated 11/8/2023 to the High Court for a revision under section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the said decision without informing the applicant and/or her counsel.

The revision before the High Court in Shah Alam was heard on 25/8/2023 wherein an order of DNA was substituted with an order of DNAA. The said decision was made in the presence of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor and in the absence of the applicant and her counsel. The learned Judicial Commissioner also made a further order in that the applicant can be charged again on the said offences.

Aggrieved by the decision, the applicant filed Notice of Motion (enclosure 1) dated 5/9/2023 for leave to appeal from this Honourable Court pursuant to section 50(2) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964. The Relevant Provisions of Law

Court of Judicature Act 1964

Revision of criminal proceedings of subordinate courts. The High Court may exercise powers of revision in respect of criminal proceedings and matters in subordinate courts in accordance with any S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure Criminal Procedure Code. Jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal appeals

(1) Subject to any rules regulating the proceedings of theCourt of Appeal in respect of criminal appeals, the Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal against any decision made by the High Court—

in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; and

in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any criminal matter decided by the Sessions Court.

An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, against any decision of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any criminal matter decided by a Magistrates' Court by such appeal shall be confined to only question of law which have arisen in the course of the appeal or revision and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal or revision.

(ii) Criminal Procedure Code

Powers of Judge on revision

A Judge may, in any case the record of the proceedings of which has been called for by himself or which otherwise comes to his S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A knowledge, in his discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred by ss 311, 315, 316 and 317 of this Code.

No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard, either personally or by advocate, in his own defence.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a Judge to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

(iii) Federal Constitution Protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials

(1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed.

A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted. Equality

(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A Principles of Laws in Granting Leave to Appeal [11] It is trite law that appeals arising from decisions of the Magistrate’s Court in criminal matters that come before the Court of Appeal must necessarily be confined to issues of law only and prior leave is required before an appeal can be lodged in the Court of Appeal. The applicant must show whether or not there exist questions of law while it is not so required on the part of the Public Prosecutor. [12] In Public Prosecutor v. Rahmat Bin Ghazali & Another Appeal [2020] MLJU 1954, the Court of Appeal held that: “[9] Section 50 gives jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to hear appeals from criminal matters decided in the High Court and it includes appeals from Sessions Court and Magistrates Courts. However, section 50 (2) provides a limitation to the manner that appeals emanates from Magistrates Court are brought to the Court of Appeal. It must be noted that section 50 (2) provides generally and without qualification that “an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal, with leave of the Court of Appeal”. It also enacts that “such appeal” shall only be confined to question of law. [13] This principle was further echoed in the Court of Appeal case of Nor Azman bin Ghazali v. Public Prosecutor [2013] 1 MLJ 486, where it held as follows: “[12] From the express wording of s 50 and in particular to sub-s (2) thereof, for the Court of Appeal to be conferred jurisdiction two pre - conditions must be fulfilled by the applicant, namely:

a leave application must be filed within 14 days from the date of the High Court decision; and

it must be shown in the leave application the question of law which arose in the course of the appeal and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal.” “[13] The pre-requisites aforesaid was lucidly explained by Lamin Mohd Yunus PCA in Public Prosecutor v. Pasupathy s/o Kanagasaby [2001] 2 MLJ 143; [2001] 2 CLJ 753 where he said: When an accused person desires to appeal, the full force of sub-s

comes into play. He has to apply for ‘leave’ and that his appeal must be confined to only questions of law which have arisen in the course of the appeal or revision and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal or revision.” [17] The crucial element of ‘question of law’ must in our view relates to questions involving the interpretation of relevant and applicable legal principles. It is totally different from questions of facts which require references to facts and evidence and the inferences drawn from the facts. In essence questions of law are questions involving legal principles of wide applicability in diverse situations and not confined to any particular facts. [14] In Public Prosecutor v. Mahathir bin Muhammad [2013] 1 MLJ 50, the Court of Appeal speaking through Mohd Hishamudin JCA (as he then was) held as follows: S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A “[20] The rationale for limiting the appeal to question of law only is not difficult to appreciate. The cases that emanate from the magistrate’s courts are relatively less serious in nature as compared to cases dealt with by the session courts, and in most cases, they involve only finding of facts. Hence, there is very minimal risk of real injustice if further appeals to the Court of Appeal should only be confined to questions of law.” Questions of Law [15] In the affidavit in support of the application (enclosure 2) before us, reference was made to six (6) questions said to be such questions of law and they are as follows:

Sama ada terhadap perlanggaran nyata jelas seksyen 325(2) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang telah membawa kepada suatu "miscarriage of justice" di mana tertuduh dan/atau peguamnya tidak dimaklumkan dan/atau tidak diberitahu dan/atau tidak diserahkan apa-apa mengenai permohonan semakan jenayah tersebut?

Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran secara tidak langsung seksyen 325(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang mana Yang Arif Hakim telah menukar suatu dapatan "dilepaskan dan dibebaskan" (acquittal) kepada suatu “dilepaskan tanpa dibebaskan” (discharge) dan selanjutnya diperintahkan pemohon boleh dituduh kembali atas pertuduhan yang sama?

Sama ada permohonan semakan yang dibuat oleh pihak Responden pada melalui suatu surat yang dikatakan bertarikh 11/8/2023 selepas tamat tempoh rayuan atas keputusan yang dibuat pada 26/6/2023 merupakan suatu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah yang membawa kepada suata "miscarriage of justice"?

Sama ada permohonan semakan yang dibuat oleh pihak Responden sendiri diluar tempoh rayuan boleh diterima bagi semakan di bawah seksyen 323 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah?

Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran yang nyata jelas Perkara 7(2),8(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia?

Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran prinsip “audi alteram partem” yang merupakan suatu prinsip asas dasar "natural justice" dalam pendengaran semakan di Mahkamah Tinggi, Shah Alam di mana pemohon serta peguambela pemohon tidak dimaklumkan, tidak diberitahu dan tidak disertakan apa-apa mengenai permohonan semakan jenayah tersebut yang dijalankan, diteruskan dan diputuskan secara tersembunyi? The Applicant’s Contention [16] The applicant’s s argument can be briefly summarised as follows:

The applicant has satisfied the threshold required for leave to appeal;

There appears to be a miscarriage of justice, particularly the provisions in Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code under the heading Revision was clearly and blatantly not complied with during the revision;

The applicant and/or her counsel was not informed of the hearing of the matter;

The High Court made the order without giving an opportunity to be heard by the applicant and/or her advocate who was on record from the beginning;

The respondent has neglected to appeal but sought the High Court's powers of revisions as a back door appeal;

The respondent failed to provide good reasons why the appeal was not filed against the decision of the learned Magistrate and why no extension of time was filed;

The revision application made by the respondent to the High Court seemed to have contravened Article 7 and 8 of the Federal

The High Court failed to convert the matter into a hearing of an appeal. S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A The Respondent’s Contention [17] The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor in his affidavit in reply affirmed on 3/10/2023 (enclosure 5) stated as follows: “(a) Merujuk kepada persoalan undang-undang yang dirangka seperti di dalam Notis UsuI di (Kandungan 1) di Lampiran A yang disertakan, di perenggan 1 sehingga 6 saya sesungguhnya menyatakan bahawa persoalan tersebut bukanlah persoalan undang-undang yang dikehendakkan di bawah peruntukan seksyen 50(2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 tetapi adalah persoalan fakta dan juga percampuran persoalan undang-undang dan fakta;

Tambahan lagi, jika dilihat kepada perenggan 2 dan 3 persoalan yang dicadangkan oleh Pemohon jelas bukanlah suatu persoalan undang-undang kerana apa yang terlibat adalah hanya berkaitan isu pemfailan berganda (double filing) di mana semua urusan pentadbiran Mahkamah (administration of the court) bukanlah suatu persoalan undang-undang dan proses semakan jenayah di bawah seksyen 325(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tidak tertakluk kepada tempoh 14 hari sepertimana rayuan jenayah;

Selain itu, Responden menyatakan bahawa persoalan yang dicadangkan di perenggan 4, 5 dan 6 bukanlah suatu persoalan undang-undang yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan yang mulia ini kerana tidak timbul isu perlanggaran Perkara 7(2) mahupun Perkara 8(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana apa yang terjadi hanyalah kesilapan pendaftaran berganda (double filing) di mana kes BD-82-8-06/2023, yang mana pertuduhan di S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A dalam kes tersebut, adalah sama dengan pertuduhan di dalam kes BD-82-6-06/2023. Akibat daripada pemfailan berganda itu, pihak pendakwaan telah mohon untuk kes BD-82-8-06/2023 di dilepaskan tanpa dibebaskan (DNAA) yang mana Mahkamah Majistret telah memberikan perintah lepas dan bebas (acquitted and discharge); dan

Selain itu, Responden ingin deposkan di sini bahawa Responden tidak mempunyai sebarang bantahan sekiranya kes BD-82-8- 06/2023 yang telah dilakukan pemfailan berganda (double filing) dibatalkan secara pentadbiran, dan pendakwaan boleh diteruskan terhadap Pemohon untuk pertuduhan-pertuduhan di dalam kes BD- 82-6-06/2023 yang mana ianya didaftarkan terlebih dahulu terhadap Pemohon. lni kerana tidak ada isu pendakwaan berganda (double jeopardy) terhadap Pemohon ini dan yang berlaku hanyalah kesilapan pemfailan berganda sewaktu kes didaftarkan di Mahkamah Majistret.” Our Decisions [18] Before turning to the findings of this Honourable Court, we find it necessary to begin by examining two reported decisions on revisionary powers of the High Court. [19] The power of revision by the High Court are found in section 31 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In PP v. Sogas Trading [2020] MLRHU 127, Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JC (as he then was) said: S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A [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. [21] Therefore, when an applicant neglects to file an appeal against an appealable decision the applicant cannot use the High Court's powers of revision as a back door appeal (See Ong She Sen v. PP [2008] 4 MLRH 530; [2010] 7 CLJ 220). It is incumbent on the applicant to provide to the Court very good reasons why an appeal was not filed. If the appeal was restricted because the applicant was out of time, the applicant must show evidence that an application for an extension of time to file the appeal was made. In the recent decision of Muhammad Nuzul Ikram Nurullail & Ors v. PP [2018] MLRHU 271; [2018] 3 AMR 182 the High Court dismissed an application for revision when the applicant failed to file an appeal against an appealable decision. [20] In Manokaran v. PP [ 1979] 1 MLJ 262, Abdoolcader J. (as he then was) dealt with the revisionary power in the following way: “I have however not only extensive powers of revision in criminal proceedings under the provisions of s.325 of the Criminal Procedure S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A Code but even wider powers conferred by s.35 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964, and the Deputy Public Prosecutor agrees that in a case like this where there is an appeal against conviction on a plea of guilty it is open to me to deal with the conviction in the exercise of my power of revision if the circumstances of the case so warrant. I would merely add that in my view notwithstanding the provisions of s.305 of the Criminal Procedure Code an appeal against a conviction on a plea of guilty will still lie if the charge discloses no offence in law, in which event the conviction itself would be illegal and a nullity. It is true that the matters complained of in this appeal have been brought to my notice by way of a record of appeal and the proceedings before me are headed in the criminal appeal, but, as I pointed out to, Counsel on both sides of the outset of this hearing, it is nevertheless open to me notwithstanding this to exercise my powers of revision in this matter, and I referred in this regard to the decision of the Privy Council in In re Chunbidya & Ors. to the effect that when the High Court has before it on appeal a record of criminal proceedings, it can proceed to exercise its powers of revision if it chooses to do so and make the requisite order although precluded by another provision in the Criminal Procedure Code from doing so in the appeal.” (Emphasis added). [21] Based upon the principles of law stated above, we find that the orders of DNAA and a further order that the applicant can be charged again on the said offences made by the learned Judicial Commissioner upon revision without the applicant and/or her counsel been notified of the hearing of the matter and be given an opportunity of being heard in this S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A matter is gravely prejudicial and has certainly occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice to the applicant. The outcome of the revision might not be the same if the applicant had been heard on this critical issue. The argument raised by the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor that the issue of double filing of the same charges was merely a “technical glitch”, with respect could not hold water. [22] In the circumstances it is plain and obvious that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice in that the audi alteram partem rule had not been observed when the applicant was denied the notice and opportunity to answer the issues and to defend herself. In addition, there is also clear breach of Arahan Pentadbiran Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Bil. 2 Tahun 2018 Paragraph 3 (e) (iii) (although it has no binding effect on this Honourable Court) which is reproduced herein: S/N 9GF49AbhAkihfxgqlGi2A S/N 0 2TGFBqx7E6CPL4MSsEkWQ . . . · . . 00 .. · **Not e : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (Sila nyatakan rujukan kami apabila meryawab surat ini) PEJABAT KETUA PENDAFTAR Office of the Chief Registrar MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA Federal Court of Malaysia !STANA KEHAKIMAN PRESINT3 62506 PUTRAJAYA Telefon Faks 03'-8880 3886 Laman Web : ht tp://www .ke/zakima ll,gov.my Ruj. Tua11 : PKPMP.PKP.600-1/4/2. Ruj. J(ami Pengarah Mahkamah Negeri Semenanjung Malaysia Timbalan Pendaftar/Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya YBhg. Datuk/Dato'/Datin/Tuan/Puan, Tarikh 25 Julai 2018 ARAHAN PENTADBIRAN KETUA PENDAFTAR MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA . BIL. 2 TAHUN 2018 SISTEM e-KEHAKIMAN DI MAHKAMAH: PEMATUHAN PROSES KERJA BAGI PENDAFTARAN KES SEMAKAN JENAYAH DAN SIVIL (R E VISION ) DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA Dengan hormatnya saya merujuk kepada perkara di atas.

Bagi tujuan penyeragaman Proses Kerja Pendaftaran Kes Semakan Jenayah dan Sivil (Revision) di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya yang menggunakan Sistem e­ Kehakiman, Arahan ini hendaklah dipatuhi.

Proses kerja bagi pendaftaran kes semakan jenayah dan. sivil (revision) di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya yang menggunakan Sistem e-Kehakiman adalah seperti yang berikut: ·

surat permohonan untuk semakan jenayah/sivil hendaklah dikemukakan oleh pemohon secara manual ke Pejabat Pendaftaran Mahkamah Tinggi di lokasi yang berkenaan;

Surat permohonan tersebut hendaklah direkodkan ke dalam buku rekod permohonan emakan jenayah dan sivil (revision) sebagaimana