Abdull Hamid Embong J:

The accused person is facing a charge under s. 409 Penal Code and the trial is currently ongoing before the Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur. The prosecution had sought to adduce certain evidence recorded earlier by a magistrate in Hong Kong (the Hong Kong evidence) pursuant to the Attorney General of Malaysia's request under the provisions of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 (MACMA) but this was objected to by the defence. The learned Sessions Court Judge after hearing arguments on the admissibility of that Hong Kong evidence ruled it to be inadmissible. The learned deputy public prosecutor wrote in to this court on 26 April 2005, requesting for a revision of that order by the Sessions Court Judge. On 27 April 2005 I invited learned counsel for the accused and the learned deputy to address this court on the issue of admissibility of that Hong Kong evidence.

Whether This Court Can Exercise Its Powers Of Revision

Learned counsel for the accused first raised a preliminary point on whether this is a fit and proper matter for this court to exercise its revisionary power. He contended that the power of revision is confined to those finding