The court may exercise discretion under Section 173A(2)(a) of the CPC to dismiss charges without conviction for trivial offences, considering factors like the accused's age and familial relationships.

JUDGMENT

Teoh Shu Yee M:

Backgrounds

[1] This judgment pertains to this court's decision to release the accused who pleaded guilty to the charge of committing an offence under s 427 of the Penal Code, after an admonition or a caution to the accused.

[2] The counsel on behalf of the accused requested the assistant of a Chinese (Mandarin) interpreter. The official qualified interpreter of the court conversed with the accused to confirm that he fluent in Mandarin (Nguyen Van Cuong & Ors v. PP). It is imperative for this court to ensure that the accused fully understands the gravity of the offence and the consequence of his plea, which entails that the accused is aware of the potential sentence he may face upon pleading guilty (Seah Ah Chiew v. PP, [2006] 8 CLJ 585; Heng Kim Khoon v. PP; [1972] 1 MLJ 30).

[3] This court has a duty to carefully assess whether the accused fully comprehends the charge to which he pleads guily, ensuring his plea is unequivocal, unreserved and unqualified, with the presence of his counsel (Abdul Kadir bin Abdul Rahman v. PP, [1984] 1 MLJ 80). As a result, the court accepted the accused's plea since the charge was explained to him in a language that he fully understood. Once this court has determined that it is safe to accept the accused's plea, the court recorded in writing that the accused wishes to plea by himself without qualification (Chen Chong & Ors v. PP; [1967] 2 MLJ 130; Hajar binti Ishak v. PP; [2000] 4 CLJ 46; [2000] 3 AMR 3510).

[4] However, this court pronounced not to record the accused's conviction in the proceeding and reserved until after hearing the parties'submissions. The court decided such because in the considered view of this court that the offence committed against the family member's vehicle is of a trivial nature.

[5] The charge against the accused in the Magistrates' court of Alor Gajah reads as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 3 June 2023 jam lebih kurang 11.30 pagi, semasa berada di kebun kelapa sawit di Lot 2965, Mukim Durian Tunggal di dalam Daerah Alor Gajah di dalam Negeri Melaka telah melakukan khianat terhadap kereta jenis Ford Ranger berwarna hitam No Pendaftaran VKC 8988 milk syarikat penama Wong Nyong Khoon dengan niat untuk menyebabkan kerosakan kepada harta itu yang nilainya RM10,203.50. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 427 Kanun Keseksaan.

[6] Regarding the statement of the fact of the case (P1) tendered by the prosecution, the admission was made in response to the counsel's request for the addition of particulars provided by the accused. However, the prosecution argued that these particulars should be considered as mitigation since the prosecution's statement of the fact was based on information provided by the complainant. The court interpreter clarified the situation to the accused in Mandarin, and both the accused and his counsel confirmed that they understood the situation and had no objections. It must be emphasised that, this court then asked the accused again through the court interpreter for confirmation and the accused himself confirmed that he accepted and admitted the facts as stated in P1.

[7] The facts were as follows. The complainant is a 56-years-old farmer or manager of ACE Reality Management Sdn Bhd On 3 June 2023, around 11.30am, while at the complainant's farm at lot 2965, Mukim Durian Tunggal, Alor Gajah, a verbal altercation occurred between the complainant and the accused. During the altercation, the complainant and his wife were inside a car. Suddenly, the accused attacked the complainant with a "machete" (parang). Since the complainant's car was locked, the accused could not physically harm the complainant. Instead, the accused proceeded to strike the complanant's black Ford Ranger vehicle bearing registration number VKC 8988, causing damage as a result of the "machete" blows. The complainant left the scene out of concern for his and his wife's safety. The complainant incurred a loss of RM10,203.50 d