An appeal is not permissible against interlocutory rulings that fail to dispose of the rights of the parties in a trial.

[1] The appeal before us is by the appellant against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner (JC) dated 30 August 2018, in dismissing the application by the appellant vide her Notice of Motion (NOM) dated 16 March 2018 wherein she applied, inter alia, that:

(a) the charges preferred against her under s 409 of the Penal Code in Criminal Case No: AA-62K-(37-38)10-2017 be set aside and/ or quashed and struck out and for further orders that the appellant be acquitted and discharged from all the charges thereof;

(b) the charges preferred against her under s 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFA) read together with sub-section 87(1) AMLATFA in Criminal Cases No: AA-62K-(39-45)-10-2017 & AA-62K-(114-122)-12-2017 be set aside and/or quashed and struck out and for further orders that the appellant be acquitted and discharged from all the charges thereof; and

(c) the order of seizure under s 50(1) AMLATFA dated 24 July 2014 be struck out.

[2] At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, the respondent raised a preliminary objection, in that the order by the learned JC in dismissing the NOM dated 30 August 2018 was not a final decision and that it is not appealable.

[3] After considering the oral and the written submission of parties, unanimously we found that the appeal herein is an incompetent appeal as the decision of the learned JC was not appealable and hence allowed the preliminary objection. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal. Herein below are our grounds for deciding so.

A. Submission By The Respondent On The Preliminary Objection:

[4] The respondent submitted that the Order by the learned JC was not a final decision which finally disposed of the rights of the appellant. The Order which dismissed the NOM by the appellant is not appealable as it is not a "decision" as envisaged under s 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA).

[5] In this case, the appellant filed a NOM at a stage after the charges under s 409 Penal Code and s 4(1)(a) of the AMLATFA read together with s 81 of the same filed on 15 July 2015 and 18 July 2016 were discharged not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) where the complainant was cross examined by the defence counsel. Subsequently the appellant was recharged under s 409 on 6 October 2017 and that the charges were read to the appellant on 8 December 2017.

[6] At the stage when the appellant filed the NOM, the Prosecution has yet to complete calling its witnesses in proving a prima facie case against the appellant for the charges filed on 6 October 2017 and 8 December 2017.

[7] On 30 August 2018, after hearing submission of parties, the learned JC dismissed the NOM. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to this court against that Order by the learned JC.

[8] It is the respondent's stand that this Order by the learned JC is not an appealable order as it is a procedural order. In support of this contention, the respondent referred to the case of Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP , which was affirmed by the Federal court (FC) in Ahmad Zubair Hj Murshid v. PP ; [2014] 6 MLJ 831 ; ; [2015] 1 AMR 105 ; where the FC held that appeals against technical ruling are incompetent and hence are unappealable.

[9] Prior to Ahmad Zubair Hj Murshid (supra), a similar ruling was also made in the case of Karpal Singh Ram Singh v. PP , where the Federal court echoed the same principle as in Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim (supra) and opined that a dissatisfied party is never deprived either of his right to appeal after the conclusion of a trial, in the event he feels aggrieved with the ruling made in the course of the trial, as that supposed error could be