Back
2024 MarsdenLR 854
HIGH COURT MALAYA KOTA BHARU
MUHAMMAD ALIF HAYYUN CHE ASDI – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: DA-42H(A)-1-08-2022]
The court affirmed the discretion of sentencing under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, emphasizing that a bond of good behaviour can be appropriate for non-violent offences.
Headnote:(A) Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 - Sections 6(1) and 7(1) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 294 - Respondent pleaded guilty to possession of dangerous weapons and was discharged with a bond of good behaviour for 3 years - The court considered mitigating factors including the respondent's age, lack of prior conviction, and the nature of the offence. (Paras 12-16)
(B) Sentencing Principles - The appellate court should be slow to interfere unless the sentence is manifestly wrong or unsuitable - The learned Sessions Court Judge did not err in applying discretion under s 294 of the CPC, and the sentence was deemed appropriate given the circumstances. (Paras 18-36)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was arrested for possessing two swords and a stingray's tail in a public place, found in a vehicle during a raid. (Paras 5-11)
Findings of Court:
The learned Sessions Court Judge appropriately imposed a bond of good behaviour, considering the respondent's circumstances and the nature of the offence. (Paras 36)
Issues: Whether the sentence imposed was adequate considering the seriousness of the offences and public interest. (Paras 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the discretion to impose a bond under s 294 of the CPC is valid, and the learned SCJ did not err in judgment. (Paras 31-36)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The appellant (respondent) was imposed with 2 charges at the Sessions Court with the charges read as follows:
1st Charge
"Bahawa kamu, di antara 11 November 2020 jam lebih kurang 11.45 malam di dalam sebuah kereta Honda CRV No. Plat: DDD 5658, di hadapan sebuah kedai makan Warung Che Som, Kampung Banggol Kulim, dalam Daerah Pasir Mas, di dalam Negeri Kelantan, didapati ada dalam milikan kamu senjata berjadual, iaitu dua bilah pedang masing-masing berukuran lebih kurang 97cm dan 60cm, tanpa maksud yang sah. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 7(1) Akta Bahan-Bahan Kakisan dan Letupan dan Senjata Berbahaya 1958 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 7(1) Akta yang sama dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun Keseksaan.
Hukuman: Jika disabitkan, boleh dipenjara selama tempoh 5 tahun dan maksimum 10 tahun."
2nd Charge
"Bahawa kamu, di antara 11 November 2020 jam lebih kurang 11. 45 malam di dalam sebuah kereta Honda CRV No. Plat: DDD 5658, di hadapan sebuah kedai makan Warung Che Som, Kampung Banggol Kulim, dalam Daerah Pasir Mas, di dalam Negeri Kelantan, didapati ada dalam milikan kamu senjata berbahaya di tempat awam, iaitu sebatang ekor pari berukuran lebih kurang 104cm tanpa maksud yang sah. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 6(1) Akta Bahan- Bahan Kakisan dan Letupan dan Senjata Berbahaya 1958 dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun Keseksaan.
Hukuman: Jika disabitkan, boleh dipenjara selama tempoh 5 tahun dan maksimum 10 tahun."
[2] The respondent pleaded guilty to both charges with the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) making an Order under s 294 of the Criminal Procedure and deciding that the respondent be discharged with bond of good behaviour with 1 guarantor and a surety of RM5,000.00 for 3 years for each of the charges. The period of the bonds are to run concurrently with each surety being separate, making a total of RM10,000.00. There were 2 other accused who claimed trial to the same charges.
[3] The appeal to the High Court filed by the prosecution is against the decision imposed for the charges under ss 6(1) and 7(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Weapons Act 1958 and this Court, after deliberating upon the written submissions, decided to dismiss the appeal with the decision of the learned SCJ being affirmed.
[4] The prosecution has decided to appeal to the Court of Appeal against this Court's decision in affirming the decision of the learned SCJ, hence the reasons for the decision being made are hereby furnished.
Admitted Facts Of The Case
[5] On 11 November 2020, at about 11.45pm, a raid was conducted by ASP Saudi bin Abdul Rahman at a small eatery (warung) called Warung Cek Som, Kampung Banggol Kulim, in the district of Pasir Mas, in the state of Kelantan, regarding another case.
[6] At the location, the complainant conducted an examination of all accused and the 1st accused brought the complainant to a car, being a Honda CRV bearing the plate number: DDD 5658, parked in front of the warung. Using the key given by the 1st accused, the complainant opened the door of the said car and carried out an inspection.
[7] The complainant discovered a sheathed sword and another sword without a sheath in the centre between the driver and passenger seats, each with the size of 97cm and 60cm. A further inspection in the boot of the car found a stingray's tail (ekor pari) to the size of 104cm.
[8] Several others were arrested together with the 3 accused in relation to the case under s 148 of the Penal Code with the investigation being made by Insp Abdul Halim bin Omar for the case of possession of weapon under ss 7 and 6 of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Weapons Act 1958 (Act 357). The result of the investigation discovered that the Honda CRV belongs to the 1st accused with the 2nd accused being the son of the 1st accused, and the 3rd accused being the adopted son of the 1st accused.
[9] On the night of the incident, all 3 of them were in t
