Eusoff Chin CJ:

This appeal was argued before us on 3 March 1999. We confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal.

The appeal centred on art. 121 of the Federal Constitution, in particular cls. (1) and (1A). The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to try the appellant for committing an act of gross indecency, an offence under s. 377D of the Penal Code because the offence of 'Liwat' is triable by the Syariah Court. We quote the relevant provisions of the law:

Article 121 of the Federal Constitution states -

121. (1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely:

(a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry in Kuala Lumpur;

and

(b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may determine;

and such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law and the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law.

(1A) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.

Section 377D of the Penal Code states:

377D. Any person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of, any act of gross indecency with another person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.

'Liwat' is defined under s. 2 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 (hereinafter Act 559) as follows:

'Liwat' means sexual relations between male persons.

Section 25 of Act 559 provides:

25. Any male person who commits liwat shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to whipping not exceeding six strokes or to any combination thereof.

Learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument on the interpretation of art. 121(lA) only. He argued that since 'liwat' is an offence triable by a Syariah Court, and the parties involved are persons professing the religion of Islam, the appellant ought to be charged and tried in the Syariah Court. He cited s. 1(2) of Act 559 which states:

1.(2) This Act shall apply only -

(a) to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; and

(b) to persons professing the religion of Islam.

Learned counsel for the respondent cited s. 59 of the Interpretation Act which states:

"59. Where any act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more written laws or under a written law and at common law the offender is liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those laws or at common law, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

The insertion of cl. (1A) into art. 121 of the Federal Constitution was done by Parliament vide Act 704/88 which came into force on 10 June 1988. The Court of Appeal dealt with this amendment in its judgment and stated:

Prior to the introduction of Article 121(1A), the ordinary Courts had the power to review, and quite regularly reviewed, the decisions of Syariah Courts by certiorari. That this caused some concern among those entrusted with the task of administering Muslim law is reflected in the speech delivered in the Dewan Rakyat when introducing the Bill that eventually became Act A704/88. We say at once that we are, in the circumstances of the present case, entitled to refer to the proceedings during the debate of the Bill in the Dewan Rakyat. No question of parliamentary privilege arises here. That we are entitled to make such reference is now settled by the decision of the Federal Cour