SHAIK DAUD JCA I have had the privilege of reading in drafts both the judgments of my brothers, VC George and Gopal Sri Ram JJCA. In my view, there is a lacuna in the law on the refusal of a judge to exercise his revisionary powers but I feel the court is not the place to fill in this lacuna.

I therefore concur with the judgment of my brother, Gopal Sri Ram JCA.

Gopal Sri Ram JCA (delivering the majority judgment of the court): This court was moved on 6 February 1995, by the applicants for leave to refer certain questions to this court under s 66(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which I will refer to as the Act throughout this judgment. Having heard argument, we reserved judgment. I now hand down the conclusions I have arrived at and the reasons for them.

Although there is a reference in the motion to s 66(5)(b) of the Act, the first prayer asks for an order in the following terms:

(a) Pemohon-pemohon diberi kebenaran untuk merayu kepada Mahkamah

Rayuan Malaysia terhadap keputusan Yang Arif Dato Syed Ahmad

Idid bin Syed Abdullah Idid yang diberi pada 20 Oktober 1994 yang

memutuskan bahawa berdasarkan kepada peruntukan di bawah s 323

Kanun Acara Jenayah, Yang Arif Hakim tidak perlu menggunakan

kuasa penyemakan Yang Arif untuk menyemak kes ini.

Now that seemed quite odd because what was being sought was leave to appeal and not not leave to reserve questions. But Encik Su in the course of his address to us conceded that the motion was unhappily worded and that what he really wanted was, leave to reserve the questions set out in para 9 of the supporting affidavit.

For my part, I would readily express my gratitude to counsel and parties who do not not formulate their applications in cryptic language and await an oral hearing to explain what they really want. The consequence of drafting motions in unclear terms tends to mislead the court and does little or nothing to advance the course of justice which is the ultimate master we all serve. Practitioners and deputy public prosecutors should note that where an application is made under s 66, the motion must be intituled in the matter of that section. Further, the questions of law in respect of which leave is sought must appear in the body of the motion and not merely in the supporting affidavit as has been done in this case.

Having said this, I return to the present application. In para 9 of the supporting affidavit are identified several questions of law which, according to counsel, merit a reference. Of these, only one really has survived in argument and that too in an amended form. It reads as follows: Whether a party who has applied for revision and has been refused it has a right to apply under s 66(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1966.

To understand the question it is necessary to advert to the salient facts of the case.

On 25 July 1994, the Datuk Bandar of Kuala Lumpur caused to be issued out of the magistrates court a summons to the second applicant to attend before that court to answer a charge in the following terms:

Bahawasanya kamu pada 19 Mei 1994 lebih kurang pukul 11 pagi didapati

ada menggunakan premis No Lot 5.3 No 29, Jalan Pahang, Kuala Lumpur

sebagai tempat untuk menjalankan perniagaan menjual kereta terpakai

tanpa lesen daripada Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur maka dengan itu kamu

telah melanggar s 2 Undang-Undang Kecil Perlesenan Tred, Perniagaan dan

Perindustrian (Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur) 1986 adalah satu

kesalahan boleh dihukum di bawah s 27 Undang-Undang Kecil tersebut.

On 28 September 1994, the first applicant, who is the general manager of the second applicant, appeared before the magistrate on behalf of the latter. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined RM500 which he paid. He was also ordered to pay a penalty of RM100 per day for as long as the offence continued. That sum the applicants have refused