(delivering the Judgment of the Court): Following his arrest on October 19, 1981 the appellant led the police to two places where they recovered (a) 2 revolvers and (b) several rounds of ammunitions. As a result of police investigations and cautioned statements made by the appellant, he was separately charged for robberies with a deadly weapon, to wit a .38 revolver with named co-accused or co-accused on October 31, 1981 and November 1, 1981 respectively. The appellant pleaded guilty to all these four charges and the following sentences were passed by the President of the Sessions Court at Johor Bahru, viz:

(a) As to Criminal: 6 years imprisonment and

Trial No. A402/81 3 strokes of the rotan;

(b) As to Criminal: 6 years imprisonment and

Trial No. A407/81 2 strokes of the rotan;

(c) As to Criminal: 6 years imprisonment and

Trial No. A409/81 and

(d) As to Criminal: 6 years imprisonment.

Trial No. A410/81

It was ordered that all prison sentences are to run concurrently. The appellant did not appeal to the High Court against the sentences passed and we are informed by learned counsel for the appellant that sentences on whipping had been duly carried out.

While the appellant was still serving his prison sentence he was charged again on March 14, 1984 for offences under section 57 of the Internal Security Act 1960 for being in control, without lawful authority, of:

(i) 1 .38 Special revolver No. 32 and 4/1209 and 1 homemade .38

Special revolver under section 57(1)(a) and

(ii) 29 rounds of .38 Special ammunitions and 10 rounds of .38

ammunitions under section 57(a) (b) of the Internal Security Act

1960.

Since both these charges carry the death penalty learned counsel was assigned to defend the appellant at the trial. The appellant was found guilty by the High Court and was sentenced to death only on the first charge while sentence on the second charge was suspended pending the outcome of this appeal. A stay of execution was granted pending appeal to the Supreme Court after notice of appeal was filed by the appellant.

Before the hearing of the appeal we allowed an application by the appellant to adduce additional evidence about the trials, convictions and sentences relating to the four armed robbery charges which took place in the Sessions Court in 1981 in order to enable the defence to raise the plea of autrefois convict after the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor had intimated to the Court that he had no objection to the motion. We also allowed the Memorandurn of Appeal to be amended so as to permit the appellant to include the plea of autrefois convict as a ground of appeal at the trial in the assigned to defend the appeal at the trial in the High Court stated that no instructions were given to him by the appellant about the trials, convictions and sentences in the Sessions Court at Johor Bahru in 1981: nor was he aware of these when he was defending the appellant in the High Court. However, these matters came to light only after a new defence counsel had been assigned to argue the appeal of the appellant in the Supreme Court. As a matter of procedure, the plea of autrefois convict ought to be raised and determined before the commencement of the trial in the High Court (see section 303 of the CPC) but having regard to the special circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, we allowed the plea to be raised and argued in the Supreme Court.

The question of law we have to detemine is whether the appellant could lawfully be charged again on March 14, 1984 in the High Court for offences constituted by the same acts under the Internal Security Act 1960 after he had been tried, convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court at Johor Bahru for four robberies with a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver under sections 392 and 397 of the Penal Code in 1981.

It is a principle of the common law of England and in particular in the administration of crimina