Visu Sinnadurai J:

[1] At the conclusion of the hearing of this application for revision, this court dismissed the application. I now give my reasons for so dismissing the application.

[2] This is an unusual application for revision. In this application the prosecution is seeking to set aside the judgment of the Sessions court judge, Muar, who had, on the accused pleading guilty to the charge, sentenced the accused to a term of imprisonment for seven (7) years. The effect of this application for revision, if allowed, is to have the case remitted back to the Sessions court for the Sessions court judge to set aside the plea of guilty pleaded by the accused, and instead conduct a full trial so as to determine whether the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offence, such that if the accused is found to be so, to send him to a mental hospital for an indefinite period of time.

[3] This application therefore raises a fundamental issue relating to the rights of an accused person: whether, an accused, when there is some evidence before the court to suggest that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offence, but who is fit to stand trial, is precluded from exercising his right under the Criminal Procedure Code to plead guilty to the offence for which he is charged.

[4] There is a paucity of Malaysian authorities on this important aspect of criminal procedure, and therefore it is necessary for me to consider the position of such an accused person by making a detailed study of the relevant statutory provisions and the available caselaw.

[5] I am given to understand that the practice of the courts has been that, if at the commencement of a trial, there is evidence of the accused person being of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence, the courts would refuse to accept the plea of guilty, even if at the time of the trial the accused had recovered from the mental illness and had been confirmed by a medical officer to be fit to stand trial. In such cases, the magistrate or the Sessions court judge conducting the trial, often rejects the plea and proceeds to conduct the trial to determine the issue whether the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offence.

The Facts

[6] The appellant aged 27 in the present case was charged in the Sessions court for an offence under s 436 of the Penal Code. The said charge read as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 7 Januari 1994 lebih kurang jam 8.45 malam di Kg Sg Gersik, Sg Balang Parit Jawa, di dalam Daerah Muar, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah melakukan khianat dengan api dengan niat menyebabkan kerosakan kepada bangunan kepunyaan Esah bte Karton KP No 2244434 yang digunakan sebagai tempat kediaman manusia atau menyimpan harta benda. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 436 Kanun Kesiksaan.

[7] The said offence, that is causing mischief by fire with intent to destroy a house, is punishable under the Penal Code for a term of imprisonment up to 20 years, and also a fine.

[8] The accused lived with his mother, aged 60 years, and his grandmother, aged 80 in an unnumbered wooden house in Parit Jawa, Muar. The accused set fire to the house and as a result, the house was completely burnt, and his grandmother who was in the house at the material time was subsequently found dead. A post-mortem report indicated that her death was caused by the fire. From the facts, it also appears that when the mother attempted to put out the fire, the accused had prevented her from so doing.

[9] The accused was subsequently sent to the Hospital Permai Tampoi for observation. A medical report dated 3 September 1994, that is about nine months after the incident, on the accused stated that the accused was under observation and that:

During his stay here, patient showed signs and symptoms of a serious mental disorder called "Manic Depressive Psychosis" which is characterized by illogical thinking, grandiose delusion and disinhibited behaviour.

At the t