The appellant in this case was charged for theft of a motor-car in the Magistrate's Court, Petaling Jaya. He pleaded guilty to the said offence and was sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment and a fine of $3,000/- or, in default six months' imprisonment, to be followed by one year's police supervision.

Mr. Chandra, who appeared for the appellant, contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive as the maximum sentence for theft was three years. He pointed out that although the appellant was a security guard, he has been dismissed from his job and was unable to pay the fine. Counsel referred to Tan Kah Eng v Public Prosecutor [1965] 2 MLJ 272 in which case a seamstress was convicted of carrying on a public lottery contrary to section 4(1) (c) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, 1961, and was sentenced to a fine of $3,000/- or, in default six months' imprisonment. She appealed against sentence and Ambrose J. (as he then was) held that the fine of $3,000/- was manifestly excessive and that a fine should always be related to the means of the accused. The learned Judge also held in that case that the imposition of a fine beyond the appellant's means or six months' im