JUDGMENT

Mohd. Azmi SCJ:

[1] At a joint trial of the appellant and one Lim Ah Wang, the appellant was convicted by Abdul Malek J on two counts under s 57(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (revised 1972) , in the Kota Bharu High Court and sentenced to death. On the first charge he was found guilty of being in possession without lawful authority, of a .22 pistol No 94776 in a security area at a police road block along the Rantau Panjang-Pasir Mas Highway on 22 September 1984 at about 12.30 pm, an offence punishable under s 57(1)(a) .

[2] On the second charge, he was found guilty under s 57(1)(b) of being in possession of thirty-three rounds of 22 ammunition without lawful authority at the same time and place. The pistol was found tucked in the front part of his trousers loaded with nine rounds of ammunition. Another 24 rounds of ammunition were found in a polythene bag in his right hand trousers' pocket. However, Lim Ah Wang who was charged under s 58(2) for consorting with the appellant in the circumstances which raised a reasonable presumption that he knew that the appellant was in unlawful possession of the firearm and ammunition, was found not guilty and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case without his defence being called, there being hardly any evidence against him apart from the mere fact that he was found travelling in the same taxi as the appellant together with three other passengers.

[3] There was ample evidence to prove that at the time of the commission of the two offences, the appellant was travelling in a motor taxi driven by Che Daud bin Yusuf (PW5) from the direction of the border town of Rantau Panjang towards Pasir Mas. He was seated in front, next to the driver. There were four other passengers in the rear seat including Lim Ah Wang. The discovery of the firearm and ammunition on the person of the appellant was proved by the testimony of police witnesses and sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of the taxi driver, an independent witness. In his defence, the appellant contended that he was framed up by the police and he denied possession of the firearm and the ammunition. On the evidence before him, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the defence had not raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and found him guilty on both the charges.

[4] Before us, since the appellant was practically caught red handed with the firearm and ammunition, the only point raised by Mr Karpal Singh on behalf of the appellant was that the trial before the learned Judge was a nullity, as no application was made by the prosecution for a joint trial of both the appellant (in Criminal Trial No 14 of 1984) and Lim Ah Wang (in Criminal Trial No 15 of 1984). It was contended that the learned trial Judge was wrong in law in not exercising his discretionary power in accordance with s 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of determining whether the charges against the appellant and Lim Ah Wang ought to be tried jointly or separately. Mr Karpal Singh argued that it was a pre-requisite for the Court to decide whether or not a joint trial ought to be ordered at the commencement of the trial. Secondly, it was contended that without a certificate of the public prosecutor issued under reg 10(2) of the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 , the trial Court had no jurisdiction to order a joint trial.

[5] On the first issue raised, we were satisfied from the record and supplementary record of appeal that when the appellant and Lim appeared before the High Court with Counsel on 23 March 1986, an application was indeed made by DPP Mohd Azman bin Husin for a joint trial of both the accused persons. The application was allowed and there was nothing in the appeal record to indicate that any objection to the joint trial had been raised by the defence either on that day or on any subsequent day of the trial. Since Lim Ah Wang was charged with the offence of consorting with the appellant under s 58(2) of the I