The court affirmed the trial judge's sentencing, emphasizing that the absence of proximity in time, place, and purpose negated the application of the one transaction rule for concurrent sentencing.

Introduction

[1] The appellant was charged with two (2) offences of robbery under s 392 of the Penal Code (" PC ") read together with s 397 of the , namely-

Case No 62RS-20-08/2021

"Bahawa kamu pada 14 Ogos 2022 jam lebih kurang 1.31 pagi di KK Supermart no 45, Jalan PJS 11/7, Bandar Sunway dalam daerah Petaling, di dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah dldapati melakukan rompak terhadap penama Nanda Kumar a/l Sivalingam kpt 971227-08-6139 dengan merompak wang jualan kedai yang berjumlah RM758 yang merupakan harta dalam kawalan penama tersebut dan semasa melakukan rompak tersebut, kamu telah menggunakan skru driver sebagai senjata. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 392 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama s 397 Kanun Keseksaan"

(the 1st offence)

And

Case No 62RS-21-08/2021

" Bahawa kamu pada 14 Ogos 2022 jam lebih kurang 5 petang di stesen m inyak Caltex Jalan SS 14/1. SS 14, Suang Jay a dal am daerah Petaling, di dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati melakukan rompakan terhadap penama Md Shahidul Islam PPT BR0847535 dengan merompak wang jualan kedai yang berjumlah RM1,400/- yang merupakan harta dalam kawalan penama tersebut dan semasa melakukan rompak tersebut, kamu telah menggunakan pisau sebagai senjata. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 392 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama s 397 Kanun Keseksaan"

(the 2nd offence)

[2] The appellant pleaded guilty to both charges after the same were read to him in the Tamil language by the court interpreter. The learned trial judge accepted the plea of guilt upon being satisfied that the appellant understood the nature and consequences of his pleas. The appellant was thus convicted and sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment and whipping of two (2) strokes for each offence. The learned trial judge also ordered the terms of imprisonment to run consecutively. For the 1st offence, the term of imprisonment was to commence from the date of arrest i.e 15 August 2022. As for the 2nd offence, the term of imprisonment would take effect upon the expiry of the imprisonment term for the 1st offence.

[3] Aggrieved with the decision of the learned trial judge, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against the sentences passed on 3 February 2023. In his Petition Of Appeal, the appellant prayed for the following-

(i) the reduction of the imprisonment terms and

(ii) the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently.

[4] Briefly, the appellant submitted that the learned trial judge erred in fact and law by failing to consider-

(i) the mitigating factors raised ie plea of guilt, time and cost saved as well as the fact that the accused was only 25 years old and a first offender when he committed the offences and

(ii) the application of the one transaction rule before ordering the sentences to run consecutively.

The Law

[5] As the appellant had pleaded guilty to the 1st and 2nd charges and been convicted by the learned trial judge on his pleas, there shall be no appeal except to the extent or legality of the sentence (see s 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code ).

[6] It is trite law that the appellate court will not normally disturb the sentence of the trial court unless it is either manifestly inadequate or grossly excessive or not in accordance with the principles of sentencing. It is a firmly established practice that the court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have passed a different sentence. It is also an elementary principle that an appellate court can and will interfere if the sentence imposed was not justif