Timbalan Pendakwa Raya v Amylia Binti Abdul Rahman (JA-81-36-02/2021)

A First Class Magistrate may pass any sentence allowed by law not exceeding-

five years' imprisonment;

a fine of ten thousand ringgit;

whipping up to twelve strokes; or 4

any sentence combining any of the sentences aforesaid: Provided that where, by any law for the time being in force, jurisdiction is given to the Court of any Magistrate to award punishment for any offence in excess of the power prescribed by this section, a First Class Magistrate may, notwithstanding anything herein contained, award the full punishment authorized by that law.

Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a First Class Magistrate has convicted any person and it appears that, by reason of any previous conviction or of his antecedents, a punishment in excess of that prescribed by subsection (1) should be awarded, then the First Class Magistrate may award the full punishment authorized by law for the offence of which the person has been convicted and shall record his reason for so doing. [7] Mahkamah mendapati pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah di bawah Seksyen 302 KK yang membawa hukuman gantung sampai mati. Berdasarkan Seksyen 87 AMR, Mahkamah Majistret sememangnya tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar dan memutuskan kes-kes yang melibatkan hukuman mati. Maka, Mahkamah percaya Mahkamah Majistret juga tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk untuk mendengar dan memutuskan permohonan jamin bagi kes-kes melibatkan hukuman matI kerana tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa asal (“original jurisdiction”) untuk mendengar kes-kes melibatkan hukuman mati. 5 [8] Bidang kuasa untuk mendengar dan memutuskan kes-kes melibatkan hukuman mati adalah terletak pada Mahkamah yang mempunyai “original jurisdiction” (bidang kuasa asal) iaitu Mahkamah Tinggi sahaja sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam jadual XX KTJ. Maka, Mahkamah percaya permohonan jamin haruslah difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi. [9] Kes-kes yang dirujuk oleh peguambela seperti berikut:-

9.1 Puan Binti Saad v Public Prosecutor (2020) MLJU 1880;

9.2 Raman Shunmugham v Pendakwa Raya (2019) MLRAU 241 9.3 Public Prosecutor v Dato Balwant Singh [2002) 4 MLJ 427 menunjukkan permohonan jamin bagi kesemua kes tersebut dibuat di Mahkamah Tinggi dan bukannya Mahkamah Majistret. Perkara ini jelas sekali menunjukkan Mahkamah Majistret tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar dan memutuskan permohonan jamin bagi kes-kes melibatkan hukuman mati. [10] Untuk menyokong dapatan ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Sulaiman Bin Kadir v PP [1976] 2 MLJ 37, Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut: - [1] the learned President was correct in refusing bail; a subordinate court had no power to grant bail if there were reasonable grounds for believing that an accused person had been guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. 6 … As a matter of principle, I think a court that has been conferred with jurisdiction to try a case should also be given discretionary powers to grant bail. This would be in keeping with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, where magistrates possess the unfettered power to grant bail in all cases including cases not triable by them, except offences punishable with death or life imprisonment where only a judge may grant bail. It seems to me that the time has come to consider appropriate amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code enabling a President of a Sessions Court who has been conferred with special jurisdiction the discretionary powers to grant bail in respect of all cases triable by him. [11] Mahkamah percaya untuk pertuduhan dibawah Seksyen 302 KK, Mahkamah Majistret merupakan suatu forum untuk membaca dan menerangkan pertuduhan tersebut kepada OKT dan merekodkan bahawa pertuduhan telah dibacakan dan difahami oleh OKT tanpa merekodkan sebarang “plea” (pengakuan). [12] Bukan sahaja pertuduhuan di bawah Seksyen 302 KK, malah pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya (selepas ini akan dirujuk sebagai “ADB”) juga mempunyai prinsip yang sama sepertimana peruntukkan Seksyen 41A ADB. Seksyen 41 ADB memperuntukkan seperti berikut:-

Where any case in respect of an offence under this Act is triable exclusively by the High Court or is required by the Public Prosecutor to be tried by the High Court, the accused person shall be produced before 7 the appropriate Subordinate Court which shall, after the charge has been explained to him, transmit the case to the High Court without holding a preliminary inquiry under Chapter XVII of the Criminal Procedure Code, and cause the accused person to appear or be brought before such Court as soon as may be practicable.

When the accused person appears or is brought before the High Court in accordance with sub-section (1), the High Court shall fix a date for his trial which shall be held in accordance with the procedure under Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The trial of a case transmitted to the High Court under sub-section (1) shall be by a Judge of the High Court sitting alone, and the provisions of Chapters XXI and XXII of the Criminal Procedure Code shall not apply to such trial.

The provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall have effect notwithstanding any other written law to the contrary. Perkara ini juga telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Agung dalam kes Public prosecutor v Lee Chan Sang 1989 1 CLJ Rep 139, seperti berikut:- In simple language what that section directs is that notwithstanding any other written law to the contrary, an accused person who is charged with an offence which is 8 triable exclusively by the High Court or is required by the Public Prosecutor to be tried by the High Court shall be produced before the Magistrate's Court where after the charge has been explained to the accused the Magistrate's Court is required to the transmit the case to the High Court without holding a preliminary inquiry. Section 41A of the Act therefore confers jurisdiction on the Magistrate's Court only in so far as to receive the production of the accused person and to have the charge explained to him and then to transmit the case to the High Court forthwith without holding a preliminary inquiry. The Magistrate's Court has no jurisdiction even to record a plea of the charge. Indeed s.41(3) of the Act directs that the trial of the case shall be by a Judge of the High Court sitting alone. [13] Setelah pertuduhan dibaca dan diterangkan kepada OKT, tugas Mahkamah Majistret selanjutnya adalah untuk melanjutkan tahanan reman OKT sehingga Laporan Post-Portem dan Izin untuk Mendakwa sepertimana peruntukkan Seksyen 177A diperolehi supaya kes tersebut boleh dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Tinggi untuk proses permohonan jamin (jika ada) dan perbicaraan. Seksyen 177A memperuntukkan seperti berikut :-

A prosecution in respect of an offence which is to be tried by the High Court in accordance with Chapter XX, shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Public Prosecutor: 9 Provided that a person may be arrested, or a warrant for his arrest may be issued and executed, and any such person may be remanded in custody notwithstanding that the consent of the Public Prosecutor to the institution of a prosecution for the offence has not been obtained, but the case shall not be further prosecuted until the consent has been obtained.

In any prosecution pursuant to subsection (1), the accused shall be produced before the Magistrate's Court which shall, after the charge has been explained to him, transmit the case to the High Court and cause the accused to appear or be brought before that Court as soon as may be practicable: Provided that when the accused is brought before the Magistrate's Court before the Public Prosecutor has consented to the prosecution, the charge shall be explained to him but he shall not be called upon to plead thereto.

When the accused appears or is brought before the High Court in accordance with subsection (2), the High Court shall fix a date for his trial which shall be held in accordance with the procedure under Chapter XX. [14] Berdasarkan peruntukkan undang-undang yang dirujuk di atas, Mahkamah percaya tugas Mahkamah Majistret adalah untuk membuat pengurusan kes bagi kes-kes melibatkan Seksyen 302 KK dan 39B ADB bagi memastikan kes-kes tersebut memperolehi 10 laporan-laporan yang berkaitan. Apabila laporan-laporan berkaitan telah diperolehi Mahkamah Majistret harus memastikan bahawa kes-kes tersebut dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Tinggi setelah Izin untuk Mendakwa diperolehi berdasarkan Seksyen 177A KTJ. Selain daripada tugas ini, Mahkamah Majistret tidak mempunyai sebarang “exclusive jurisdiction” untuk memberikan apa-apa perintah lanjut selain daripada perintah memindahkan kes ke Mahkamah Tinggi setelah semua surat cara adalah teratur. Kesimpulan [15] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah percaya keputusan Mahkamah dalam menolak permohonan jaminan adalah wajar berdasarkan prinsip undang-undang yang mantap. Bertarikh 8.6.2021 Disediakan oleh, Salini a/p Retanam Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 3