Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

The substance of the complaint in this appeal is that the main points of the prosecution case were not explained to the appellant as required by s. 257(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is abundant authority in support of the proposition that a departure from the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Codeis a ground upon which an appellate court may intervene.

There is however an important qualification to that rule. It is that the power is not exercisable if there is no miscarriage of justice; or a 'failure of justice' - the phrase employed by s. 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The provision to s. 422 of the Criminal Procedure Codeis in pari materiawith the proviso to s. 60 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Both these sections have received judicial treatment. It is now settled that if there is sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction that would be a good ground for holding that there was no miscarriage or failure of justice.

In Juraimi Husin v. PP[1998] 2 CLJ 383, this court had occasion to apply the following dictum of Barwick CJ in Ratten v. R[1974] 1 CLR 510, at 586:

Miscarriage is not defined in the legislation but its significan