The court has the power to revise sentences to ensure compliance with mandatory statutory requirements and to prevent miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

Shahnaz Sulaiman JC:

[1] This is an application for revision. The respondent was charged under s 427 of the Penal Code . The charge against the respondent (in Bahasa Malaysia) is as follows:

"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 24 August 2019 jam lebih kurang 2:00 pagi, bertempat di Jalan Kulai-Sedenak 81000 Kulai, di dalam Daerah Kulai, di dalam Negeri Johor, dengan niat telah melakukan khianat iaitu memecah cermin menggunakan sebatang cangkul dan parang pada bahagian cermin hadapan, cermin di bahagian pemandu dan kelindan motolori nombor pendaftaran JTK4235 jenis Nissan UD warna putih milik syarikat CK MARK ENTERPRISE, BERALAMAT: NO 23 JALAN PERMAS 11/8, PERMAS JAYA 81750 MASAI JOHOR yang mengakibatkan kerugian berjumlah RM 4000.00. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 427 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama dengan s 34.

Hukuman:

Penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai dua tahun atau dengan denda atau dengan kedua-duanya sekali."

[2] On 5 September 2019, the charge was read to the respondent whereby the respondent understood the nature and consequence of the charge. The respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six (6) months imprisonment from the date of conviction and fine of RM 4,000.00 failing which the respondent would be liable to four (4) months imprisonment.

[3] After the respondent was sentenced, the learned Magistrate realized there was an error in her sentence for the following reasons:

(i) Section 427 of the Penal Code provides for a person who is convicted to be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than five years or with fine or with both.

(ii) The interpreter had explained to the respondent that the sentence is liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term up to two (2) years or with fine or with both, as was stated in the charge sheet.

(iii) The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor had erred when he failed to inform the court interpreter pertaining to the sentence that s 427 of the Penal Code carries.

[4] This matter was brought to the attention of this court by the learned Magistrate whereby this court had asked for the records of the proceedings in the Magistrate's court prior to hearing this matter.

[5] Pertaining to the revisionary powers of the High court, s 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:

"Power to call for records of subordinate Courts

(1) A Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate Criminal court for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of that subordinate court.

(2) Orders made under ss 97 and 98 are not proceedings within the meaning of this section."

[6] In a revision, the main question that is to be considered by the High court is whether substantial justice has been done or will be done and whether any order made by the lower court should be interfered with in the interest of justice. Please refer to the case of PP v. Kulasingam , 1974 MarsdenLR 329 .

[7] With regard to the revisionary powers of the High court, in the case of Liam Kwai Wah v. PP , 1987 MarsdenLR 719 ; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 163, the Supreme court stated:

"to confer upon criminal courts a kind of paternal supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment, which has resulted on the one hand some injury to the due maintenance of law and order; or on the other hand, in some undeserved hardship to individuals."

[8] Srimurugan Alagan in The Criminal Procedure Code a Commentary (Second Edn) stated that there are three ways in which a court may exercise its revisionary powers. The three methods of are:

"(1) in suo moto (on its own motion) upon becoming aware of irregularities or illegalities in the proceedings in the subordinate co