Section 305 of the CPC restricts appeals against conviction for guilty pleas, allowing only challenges to the legality of the sentence.

JUDGMENT

Shahnaz Sulaiman JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Magistrate's Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants from a charge under subsection 6(1) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 .

[2] At the conclusion of the hearing, this Court dismissed the appeal. This is the grounds of decision containing the full reasons for the decision of this Court.

Background

The Charge

[3] The charge against the appellants was framed as follows:

"Bahawa kamu dengan niat bersama pada 21 February 2021 jam lebih kurang 3.45 petang di rumah No 3122 Lorong Cendana 2 Taman Desa, dalam daerah Mersing, dalam Negeri Johor, telah berjudi di rumah perjudian terbuka, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 6(1) Akta Rumah Judi Terbuka 1953 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen yang sama dan dibaca bersama-sama s 34 Kanun Keseksaan."

Proceedings At Magistrate's Court

[4] At the Magistrate's Court on 31 March 2021, the charge was read out and explained to all 19 of the appellants. All the 19 appellants pleaded guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate being satisfied that all 19 of the appellants understood the nature of the charge and the consequence of their plea of guilty, went on to find all the appellants guilty and convicted all 19 appellants.

Sentence

[5] The learned Magistrate heard the mitigating pleas of the 19 appellants and the prosecution's submission on sentencing. After having deliberated on the mitigating pleas and the prosecution's submission, the learned Magistrate proceeded to sentence the appellants.

[6] The learned Magistrate sentenced the 19 appellants with a fine of RM1,000.00, in default of which to one month's imprisonment. The learned Magistrate further ordered the monies seized from all the appellants amounting to RM87,609.00 to be forfeited to the Government of Malaysia pursuant to s 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code (" CPC ").

This Appeal

[7] Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate, the appellants have appealed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Magistrate. At the time this appeal was heard, one of the appellants, Chia Kim Sim had passed away.

Evaluation And Findings

[8] The facts of this case demonstrate that the 19 appellants had pleaded guilty to the charge before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate proceeded to find the 19 appellants guilty and convicted all 19 appellants. She then went on to sentence all the appellants.

[9] Prior to considering the submissions of both the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor for the respondent on the appeal, the question this Court is required to consider is whether an accused person who has pleaded guilty, has been found guilty and convicted and subsequently sentenced is allowed to appeal against the conviction?

[10] In this regard, this Court made reference to s 305 of the CPC as reproduced below:

" Section 305 . When plea of guilty limited right of appeal.

When an accused person has pleaded guilty and been convicted by a Magistrate on that plea, there shall be no appeal except as to the extent or legality of the sentence."

[Emphasis Added]

[11] Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code corresponds with s 375 of the Indian 1973 and with s 375 of the Singapore 2010.

[12] Section 305 of the CPC precludes a convicted person from appealing against his conviction if he had pleaded guilty to the charge. The person is however, allowed to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him. The rationale behind the provision of s 305 of the is that a person who knowingly and consciously pleads guilty cannot be aggrieved by being convicted.

[13] As s 305 of the CPC precludes an appeal against a conviction where the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge, can this Court now consider this appeal against conviction where all the 19 appellants had pleaded guilty to the charge? To shed light to this question, this Court alluded to authorities. In Moham