JUDGMENT

Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim JC:

[1] This has been an application for a revision of the decision of the Sessions Court ('SCJ') sitting at &ang, convicting this applicant on his own plea of guilty for a charge under s. 4(1) of the Anti Money-Laundering Act 2001 ('AMLA'). He was convicted on his own plea of guilty and having heard the plea in mitigation and the submissions on sentence, he was sentenced by the SCJ to two years imprisonment and imposed a pecuniary order (recoverable as a fine) of RM1 million or in default 12 months imprisonment.

[2] He was not satisfied with the sentence imposed and he had appealed against the same, on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Before the SCJ and subsequently before me, the applicant had urged that he be released on bond under s. 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC'). I had, after hearing submissions from both sides, dismissed his appeal and had affirmed the sentence as imposed by the SCJ. His application for stay of execution of the sentence of imprisonment was also dismissed by me.

[3] He had since filed an appeal against my decision dismissing his appeal against sentence. That appeal is still now pending at the Court of Appeal.

[4] With the appeal still pending in the Court of Appeal, the applicant then filed in this application for me to revise the decision of the SCJ on the ground that there had been a non-compliance by the SCJ of the provisions of s. 173(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') when recording the conviction of the applicant on his own plea.

[5] Looking at this application and its potential ramifications, it has become clear to me that although this has been an application to revise the decision of the Sessions Court, nevertheless since I had disposed off the appeal pertaining to the same matter earlier, this application actually had the collateral effect as an attempt to revise or review my own said decision on the said appeal, if I were to exercise my discretion to revise the decision of the SCJ. A quick peek at the Indian position would reveal that although s. 482 as contained in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code provides for power for a High Court over there to review its own previous decisions, nevertheless, numerous decided cases would tend to show a great sense of reluctance on the part of the Indian courts to invoke such power, except in the rarest of cases, perhaps in the name of putting right what has been a manifest injustice. Even the inherent power of the High Court in India cannot be invoked by a High Court to review its judgment, passed in an appeal on the ground that the High Court had acted illegally in remitting the sentence of fine, as was shown in the case of Karamdas v. Sangat Ram AIR [1964] HP 37 at p. 39. (See, generally, Sohoni's Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973, 20th edn, at pp. 5227-5228). A perusal into our very own Criminal Procedure Code has also presented with me a revelation, but one of a different kind, namely, there being no such equivalent provisions like those contained under s. 482 of her Indian counterpart. As such, I had invited both parties to address this Court on whether I had the necessary power to do what was asked by the applicant, bearing in mind that I had disposed of his appeal against sentence and that his appeal against my decision is at the present moment, still pending before the Court of Appeal.

[6] The crux of En. S.K Cheong, the learned counsel for the applicant's argument has been that, as the SCJ had not complied with s. 173(b) CPC , her conviction against the applicant was therefore illegal. That being so, according to the learned counsel, this Court ought to revise that order and set aside the conviction that was recorded by the SCJ. Whilst this Court has no issue on its powers of revision generally, nevertheless in the context of this case I was rather apprehensive as to its proper exercise as earlier indicated by me. When I had alluded to him the fact that this Court had dealt w