Azahar Mohamed JC:

[1] The appellant, Shawar bin Hj. Mohd Yassin, who was at the material time a police personnel attached to the Special Branch of the Police Force at Sultan Ismail Airport Senai in Johore Bahru, was charged in the Magistrate's Court, Johore Bahru with the following offence:

1

Bahawa kamu pada 21 September 1996 jam lebih kurang 11.00 pagi hingga jam 12.30 tengahari, di Lapangan Terbang Sultan Ismail, Senai, di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, didapati telah dengan sengaja membantu seorang rakyat Indonesia bernama Ali Muhtar menaiki pesawat penerbangan ke Surabaya, Indonesia, tanpa melalui pemeriksaan Imigresen. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 56(1A)(b) Akta Imigresen 1959/63 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 57 dalam Akta yang sama.

[2] The appellant had claimed trial to the charge. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellant. In the event, the learned Magistrate found the appellant guilty as charged. He was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Against that conviction and sentence he has now appealed. The learned Magistrate had granted a stay of execution pending the outcome of this appeal.

[3] Before me, the conviction was attacked on a number of grounds. Even though En Abdul Hamid Menon Abdullah, learned counsel for the appellant has 37 grounds in his petition of appeal I think the critical and primary issue, which arises for determination in this appeal revolves around the question whether the charge framed against the appellant was defective. In this regard, the relevant grounds in the petition read as follows:

(1) Tuan Majistret telah menyalahi undang-undang dan fakta manakala beliau memutuskan bahawa tuduhan yang dikemukakan terhadap Perayu tiada cacat. Sebenarnya tuduhan itu mengandungi satu kesalahan yang tidak dikenali oleh undang-undang (contains an offence not known to the law). Ini merupakan satu "serious misdirection in law".

(2) Tuan Majistret telah menyalahi undang-undang dan fakta manakala beliau gagal melihat dan memahami dan mengambil kira bahawa Section undang-undang yang terlibat dan digunakan oleh Pendakwaan merupakan satu Section yang boleh ditafsirkan sebagai sangat teknikal. Ini juga telah menjadi "serious misdirection in law."

(3) Tuan Majistret telah menyalahi undang-undang dan fakta manakala beliau telah gagal untuk menolak "reject" satu tuduhan seperti yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwaan.

[4] As has been set out above, it is to be noticed that in essence the charge framed against the appellant alleged as follows:

a) that on 21 September 1996 at about 11am until 12.30pm at the Sultan Ismail Airport, Senai in Johor Baru, in Johor;

b) the accused intentionally assisted an Indonesian citizen named Ali Mukhtar;

c) board an air-craft bound for Surabaya, Indonesia;

d) without the said Ali Mukhtar going through Immigration checking.

[5] And so, the question that arises is whether what the appellant was alleged to have done falls within the scope and ambit of s 56(1A)(b) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 (the Act). For convenience I reproduce hereunder the relevant parts of that section which read as follows:

(1A) Any person who:

(b) does any act preparatory to or in furtherance of the commission of any offence under this Act;

shall be guilty of such offence and be liable to the punishment provided for such offence.

[6] It is to be noticed that the word "or" in the section is in fact a disjunctive word. That section is to be construed in this way. It creates two offences. Firstly, doing any act preparatory to the commission of any offence under this Act. And secondly, doing any act in furtherance of the commission of any offence under this Act. In both of the offences, there is no dispute that the phrase, "the commission of any offence under this Act", constitutes a key element which is essential to complete the offence under s 56(1A)(b) of the A