JUDGMENT

1. This is my JUDGMENT in respect of the appellant against the sentence of 1 month imprisonment imposed by learned Magistrate on 04.07.2007 for an offence under section 7(1)(a) of Corrosive and Explosive Substance and Offensive Weapon Act 1958 for possession of scheduled weapons ie, one long handle sword and one curved sword without lawful authority.

2. The accused was charged as follows:-

"That you, on the 2^nd day of June 2006, at about 5.25 am, at House number 21C, Lane 4, Perpati Road, Sibu, Sarawak, were found in your control of Schedule weapons, to wit, 1) One long handle sword (Kwang Tau) 2) One curved sword, otherwise than with lawful authority, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapon Act 1958 ."

3. The accused had pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to a fine of RM500.00 together with one month imprisonment. The accused had duly paid the fine and had obtained a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal to this court.

4. The main grounds of appeal relates to a single complaint that the sentence passed is grossly excessive and the learned counsel for the appellant sets out the sentencing trend and says:-

(iv) that the learned Magistrate has erred in law and/or in fact or otherwise failed to take judicial notice, the importance of consistency in sentencing having regard to the sentencing trench imposed on similar offence in Sibu Magistrate court, which the accused is entitled to rely before pleading guilty to the charge, more particularly the following:-

No.	Paticular	Sentence
1.	In the 1st Class Magistrate court in Sibu Criminal Trial No: 3-83-82-06PP v. Wong Kie Lung (u/s 7(1) CESOWA 1958)	Fine RM1000 in default 1 month on 03.08.2006.
2.	In the 1st Class Magistrate court in Sibu CriminalTrial No: 3-83-114-06PP v. Wong Ching Kiong (u/s 7(1) CESOWA 1958)	Fine RM700.00 in default 1 month on 04.09.2006.
3.	In the 1st Class Magistrate court in Sibu CriminalTrial No: 1-83-86-06PP v. Lau Puong Ing & 1 Ors (u/s 8(a) Arms Act1960 and u/s 7(1) CESOWA 1958)	Fine RM2000.00 in default 5 months and fine RM1000.00 in default 3 months respectively on 12.03.2007
4.	In the 1st Class Magistrate court in Sibu CriminalTrial No: 3-83-151-06PP v. Ahmad Iman (Indonesian) (u/s 6(1) CESOWA 1958)	Two months imprisonment with effect from date of arrest on 18/10/2006.
5.	In the 1st Class Magistrate court in Sibu CriminalTrial No: 2-83-182-06PP v. Wong Pak Song (u/s 4(2) Explosive Act 1957)	Fine RM3000 in default 3 months imprisonment on 09.04.2007.
6.	In the 1st Class Magistrate court in Sibu CriminalTrial No: 2-83-185-06PP v. Julin Ak. Suan (u/s 7(1)(a) CESOWA 1958)	Fine RM1000.00 in default 3 months on 13.04.2007.
7.	In the 1st Class Magistrate court in Sibu CriminalTrial No: 3-83-49-07PP v. Kong Teck Ting & 3 ors (u/s 4(2) Explosive Act 1956)	1st Accused P/G and fine RM3000.00 in default 1 month and 1 day imprisonment on 13.06.2007.
8.	In the 1st Class Magistrate court in Sibu CriminalTrial No: 3-83-105-06PP v. Huong Soon Tak (u/s 7(1)(a) CESOWA 1958)	Fine RM800.00 in default 2 months on 11.04.2007.

5. I have dealt with sentencing principles in detail in a number of cases to name a few are as follows: (i) Leken Gerik (M) v. Public Prosecutor , [2007] 3 MLJ 730 , (ii) Public Prosecutor v. Peter Kong ; [2007] 5 MLJ 567, (iii) Public Prosecutor v. Erwin Bin Hardy & Anor; [2007] 9 CLJ 334 , (iv) Public Prosecutor v. Sim Kay Chay; [2008] 1 CLJ 838 ; [2007] 5 MLJ 309. In Hossain, I have dealt in detail the reason why the trial court must first consider a fine before imposing a custodial sentence when the law permits to do so. That part of the judgment is now reproduced and reads as follows:-

"I will say that if parliament deems it fit that it may be fine or imprisonment or both, the court has a duty to consider first a fine for 1^st offenders and not imprisonment. However, if imprisonment is intended to be imposed, the court must state its ground why fine was n