The punishment for using a forged document under s 471 of the Penal Code is determined by the nature of the document; if it is a valuable security, s 467 applies; otherwise, s 465 applies.

Choo Kah Sing JCA:

Introduction

[1] On 9 February 2024, the Court of Appeal allowed a Motion (hereafter 'the Motion') filed by the appellants via B-06-3-12-2023 for a revision of its decision dated 10 July 2023 (hereafter 'the impugned decision') which was decided by a different panel of Justices of the Court of Appeal.

[2] On 18 April 2018, the Sessions Court convicted the appellants of committing an offence under s 471 of the Penal Code , and they were punished under s 467 of the . The appellants were sentenced to 9 years imprisonment. The appellants appealed to the High Court . On 4 July 2019, the High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.

[3] On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appeal was allowed in part. On 10 July 2023, the Court of Appeal allowed the 9 years' imprisonment term to be reduced to 6 years, but maintained the conviction finding.

[4] On 18 December 2023, the appellants filed the Motion to review the impugned decision. The Motion was granted, but the review was only in relation to the question of law raised by the appellants which was "whether the punishment for the conviction of the offence in s 471 Penal Code should be s 465, instead of s 467 as stated in the charge" (hereafter "the question of law").

[5] The question of law is now before us. This Court will confine its review exercise only to the question of law. Although the appellants were permitted to raise issues in the review, those issues must be confined and relevant to the question of law.

The Salient Facts Which Are Relevant To The Review

The Charges

[5] The amended charge against the 1st appellant reads as follow:

"Bahawa kamu pada 10 April 2013 di Premis Pejabat Tanah & Galian Selangor, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah di dalam Bandaraya Shah Alam dalam Negeri Selangor telah dengan curangnya menggunakan sebagai tulen dokumen:

Borang Pindahmilik Tanah, Bahagian atau Pajakan (Borang 14A Kanun Tanah Negara) yang bertarikh 15 Mac 2013 bagi HS (D) 64312 PT 6247 Lot Nombor 20-B4-5 Nombor 46 Jalan BP 11, Bukit Permata, Gombak, Selangor.

Yang mana dokumen ini merupakan satu cagaran berharga seperti yang diperihalkan di bawah s 467 Kanun Keseksaan dan kamu ada sebab mempercayai bahawa dokumen tersebut adalah palsu ketika ia diserahkan kepada Pejabat Tanah & Galian Selangor tersebut, dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 471 Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum dibawah s 467 Kanun yang sama.

Hukuman

Penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai 20 tahun dan bolehlah juga dikenakan denda."

[6] The amended charge against the 2nd appellant reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 10 April 2013 di Premis Pejabat Tanah & Galian Selangor, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah di dalam Bandaraya Shah Alam dalam Negeri Selangor telah bersubahat dengan Parminder Kaur A/P Kamiker Singh (No Kp: 620412-10-6766) untuk melakukan dengan curangnya menggunakan sebagai tulen dokumen:

Borang Pindahmilik Tanah, Bahagian atau Pajakan (Borang 14A Kanun Tanah Negara) yang bertarikh 15 Mac 2013 bagi HS (D) 64312 PT 6247 Lot Nombor 20-B4-5 Nombor 46 Jalan BP 11, Bukit Permata, Gombak, Selangor;

Yang mana dokumen ini merupakan satu cagaran berharga seperti yang diperihalkan di bawah s 467 kanun Keseksaan dan dia ada sebab mempercayai bahawa dokumen tersebut adalah palsu ketika ia diserahkan kepada Pejabat Tanah & Galian Selangor tersebut, di mana kesalahan menggunakan sebagai tulen dokumen cagaran berharga tersebut telah dilakukan atas sebab-sebab persubahatan kamu dan oleh demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 471 Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 467 Kanun yang sama dibaca bersama s 109 Kanun Keseksaan.

Hukuman

Penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai 20 tahun dan bolehlah juga dikenakan denda."

[7] The 1st appellant was tried under Case No MSJ6-62K-111-11/2016. The 2nd appellant was tried under Case No MSJ6-62K-112-11/2016. Both cases were tried together at the Sessions Court of Shah Alam.

[8] The appellant