Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ:

[1] By way of a notice of motion in encl (2a) the applicant is moving this court to invoke its power under r 137 of the Rules of the Federal 1995 ('RFC') to review and to set aside the order made by the court of Appeal on 30 October 2007 in Criminal Appeal No W-09-31-2003. The applicant is also seeking the inherent powers of this court under r 137 RFC for an order that the Kuala Lumpur High court Criminal Appeal NO 42-44-1998 be heard on its merits. This application has been dismissed. We now give our reasons.

[2] The applicant was charged at the Sessions court for an offence under s 377D of the Penal Code as follows:

Bahawa kamu, dalam bulan Mac 1993, pada sebelah malam, di NO 8, Jalan Setia Murni 1, Bukit Damansara, dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur telah melakukan perbuatan kelucahan melampau dengan Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim dengan membenarkan Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim memasukkan zakarnya ke dalam dubur kamu dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 377D Kanun Keseksaan.

[3] The applicant pleaded guilty to the said charge and was convicted and sentenced on 19 September 1998 by the learned judge of the Sessions court Kuala Lumpur to six months imprisonment with effect from the date of arrest.

[4] On 29 September 1998, the applicant filed a notice of appeal in the High court in Criminal Appeal NO 42-44-1998 against the decision made by the Sessions court. On 9 September 2003, the learned High court Judge, in exercising his powers under s 313(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') refused to consider the appeal and thereafter dismissed the appeal on the basis of the absence of the applicant on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

[5] On 11 September 2003, the applicant filed a notice of appeal in the court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No W-09-31-2003 against the decision of the High court and the court of Appeal upon hearing the appeal by the applicant dismissed the appeal on 30 October 2007.

[6] Based on the affidavit in support of the application, it is clear that the applicant is seeking to relitigate on an issue pertaining to the conviction and sentence meted out on the applicant on his own admission of guilt.

[7] Learned counsel for the applicant in his submission on the issue of whether the application is properly before this court and as to whether this court has jurisdiction to hear it has referred to us the case of Tan Sri Eric Chia Eng Hock v. PP, [2007] 2 MLJ 101 wherein the Federal court then went on to rule that it could consider the appellant's motion under r 137 RFC in a matter which arose out of a Kuala Lumpur Sessions court Criminal trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the power of the Federal court to hear any application or to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice under r 137 has been recognized in a plethora of cases and he cited the cases of (1) Ngan Tuck Seng & Anor v. Ngan Yin Groundnut Factory Sdn Bhd; [1999] 5 MLJ 509; [1999] 3 CLJ 26 (2) R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial court of Malaysia & Anor; [1996] 1 MLRA 725; [1997] 1 MLJ 145; [1997] 1 CLJ 147; [1997] 1 AMR 433.

[8] Although mindful of the later decision of the Federal court in Sia Cheng Soon & Anor v. Tengku Ismail Tengku Ibrahim, [2008] 3 MLJ 753 wherein the Federal court refused to consider a civil application under r 137 arising from a Sessions court civil action on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to do so and that the inherent power under r 137 was 'limited' to review of the Federal court decisions only, learned counsel for the applicant contended that several distinguishing features and observation can be made between Eric Chia's case and Sia Cheng Soon's case as follows:

(1) Sia Cheng Soon was a three member coram that did not overrule the five member decision in Eric Chia;

(2) Sia Cheng Soon recognized that the Federal court concerns itself with 'points of law';

(3) Sia Cheng Soon did not concern any i