JUDGMENT

Wong Siong Tung J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application for revision under s 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) by the three (3) Applicants/Accused. They were convicted upon their pleas of guilty in the Sessions Court at Mukah on 10 June 2025, in Criminal Case No MKH-62EG-2-6/2025. The conviction was for an offence under s 90(1) of the Forests Ordinance, 2015 (Sarawak Cap. 71) , read together with s 34 of the Penal Code, for unlawfully collecting forest produce.

[2] The charge against the Applicants/Accused is reproduced as follows:

Charge:

That you, on the 29th day of May 2025 at about 10.15am, near Batu 36, Jalan Sibu/Setapang in the District of Selangau, Mukah Division in the State of Sarawak, in furtherance of the common intention of all of you, did collect forest produce amounting to wit 101 pieces of timber logs of various sizes and species a total volume of 34.3833m3 without a licence issued to you and you have thereby committed an offence under s 90(1) of the Forests Ordinance 2015 [Cap. 71], and punishable under ss 90(1), 90(2) and 79 of the same read with s 34 of the Penal Code.

Hukuman:

Penalty:

A fine of not less than RM25,000.00 and not exceeding RM150,000.00 and imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years or to both.

Additional Order:

In addition to the penalty which may be imposed, payment of a sum of not less than ten (10) times the royalty or value of the forest produce to the Government of the State of Sarawak.

[3] Upon conviction, each applicant/accused was fined RM30,000.00, in default six (6) months' imprisonment, together with three (3) months' imprisonment. Further, under s 91(2) of the Forests Ordinance 2015 (Sarawak Cap. 71), each applicant/accused was also ordered to pay RM252,889.20 to the Sarawak State Government. The Sessions Court also issued forfeiture orders under s 79 of the Ordinance, covering the seized items, including machinery and the logs.

Submissions Of The Parties In Brief

[4] Learned Counsel for the Applicants/Accused advanced four (4) principal grounds in support of the application for revision as follows:

(a). that the Sessions Court at Mukah lacked territorial jurisdiction because the locus falls within Sibu Division;

(b). that the charge is defective owing to a misdescription of the district/division.

(c). that the investigation was incomplete or disclosed no criminal act;

(d). that the applicants/accused were denied their right to legal representation; and

(e). that the pleas of guilty were not unequivocal, as in mitigation the applicants/accused stated they were "merely workers" on Native Customary Land pursuant to an agreement with a landholder.

[5] In response, learned Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) for the respondent submitted that, pursuant to s 59(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (as extended to Sabah and Sarawak), a Sessions Court has jurisdiction to hear matters arising anywhere within the local jurisdiction of its High Court , unless specific local limits are assigned. Accordingly, the Sessions Court at Mukah, as a Circuit Court within the Sibu High Court 's jurisdiction, had proper jurisdiction.

[6] The learned DPP for the respondent further submitted that, under s 419 of the CPC, a conviction cannot be set aside merely on the ground of wrong venue, unless such error has occasioned a failure of justice.

[7] On the conduct of proceedings in the Sessions Court , the learned DPP contended that the charge was read twice, interpreted to the applicants/accused, and that they confirmed their understanding of the charge. They were also offered the opportunity for legal representation, which they declined.

[8] As to the mitigation plea, the learned DPP submitted that the applicants/accused's statement that they were "only workers" amounted to no more than an appeal for leniency, and did not render their pleas of guilty equivocal.

The Principle Of Law For Criminal Revision

[9] Section 323 of the CPC provides that:

"323 Powers to call for records of subordinate courts

(1)