JUDGMENT

Mohamed Zaini Mazlan JCA:

Introduction

[1] The respondent had pleaded guilty to a drug possession charge in the Sessions Court . He was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment and four strokes of whipping. The error lies in the number of strokes for whipping, as the minimum number of strokes for the offence was ten strokes. The Sessions Court had relied on the sentencing provision stated in the amended charge, as the prosecution had erroneously stated "less than ten strokes" instead of "not less than ten strokes". The prosecutors only realised the error later and appealed to the High Court . The High Court , however, dismissed the appeal and maintained the four strokes of whipping imposed on the basis that the respondent had pleaded guilty to the amended charge, even if the sentencing provision stated in the amended charge was erroneous.

[2] The pertinent issue is whether the sentencing provision must be stated in a charge and consequently forms part of the charge. The other arising issue is whether the Court is constrained to pass the sentencing provision expressed in a charge even where it is erroneous.

Brief Facts

[3] The respondent was charged at the Sessions Court