2008 MarsdenLR 3333
FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)
ZAKI AZMI CHIEF JUSTICE,NIK HASHIM AND ZULKEFLIFCJJ
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 07–4 OF 2007(W)
17 December 2008
Case Summary
Constitutional Law — Courts — Federal Court — Inherent powers of — Whether inherent power of Federal Court underr 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 (‘RFC’) could be invoked to confer jurisdiction to Federal Court in absence of jurisdiction conferred by s 87 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (‘CJA’) 1964 — Whether r 137 applicable only in limited circumstances — Whether attempts to relitigate matters heard and determined by Court of Appeal as apex court constitute such limited circumstances — Rules of the Federal Court 1995 r 137 — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s 87Constitutional Law — Courts — Federal Court — Jurisdiction, meaning of — Whether exercise of any power by Federal Court should only flow from its vested jurisdiction — Rules of the Federal Court 1995 r 137 — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s 87Constitutional Law — Courts — Jurisdiction of Federal Court — Whether Federal Court seised with jurisdiction to hear criminal matter originating in sessions court and heard by High Court in its appellate capacity — Whether inherent power of Federal Court under r 137 of the RFC could be invoked to confer jurisdiction to Federal Court in absence of jurisdiction conferred by s 87 of the CJA — Rules of the Federal Court r 137 — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s 87Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Appellate court, power and duty of — Appellant absent during hearing of appeal in High Court — Whether to allow hearing of appellant’s appeal in his absence would constitute abuse of process of court — Whether High Court entitled to dismiss such appeal — Criminal Procedure Code s 313(2)Criminal Procedure — Jurisdiction of court — Federal Court — Whether Federal Court seised with jurisdiction to hear criminal matter originating in sessions court and heard by High Court in its appellate capacity — Whether inherent power of Federal Court under r 137 of the RFC could be invoked to confer jurisdiction to Federal Court in absence of jurisdiction conferred by s 87 of the CJA 1964 — Rules of the Federal Court 1995 r 137 — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s 87Words and Phrases — ‘Court’ — Rules of the Federal Court 1995 r 137Words and Phrases — ‘Jurisdiction’ — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s 87
The applicant pleaded guilty in the sessions’ court to a charge under s 377DPenal CodeCourt. He failed to attend court on the hearing of the appeal, prompting the High Court judge to dismiss the appeal pursuant to s 313(2)Criminal Procedure CodeCourt of Appeal which dismissed his appeal. The applicant then motioned the Federal Court under r 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995Court of Appeal; and (ii) order the High Court to hear his appeal on the merits.
Held, dismissing the application:
(1)The case of the applicant originated from the sessions court. The High Court had heard the case in its appellate rather than original capacity and the applicant had exhausted his rights of appeal at the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the Federal Court could not deal with the matter for want of jurisdiction, pursuant tos 87Courts of Judicature Act 1964Court is seised with jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a criminal matter, decided by the High Court in its original jurisdiction (see paras 7, 10 & 12); Tan Sri Eric Chia Eng Hock v Public Prosecutor (No 1) [2007] 2 MLJ 101Ngan Tuck Seng & Anor v Ngan Yin Groundnut Factory Sdn Bhd [1999] 5 MLJ 509R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145Sia Cheng Soon & Anor v Tengku Ismail bin Tengku Ibrahim [2008] 3 MLJ 753
(2)In the absence of jurisdiction conferred by s 87 of the CJA, r 137 of the RFC — being a procedural law — could not be invoked to confer jurisdiction to the Federal Court to review a case. Rule 137 may only be invoked in limited circumstances. Attempts to relitigate a matter heard and determined by the apex court, ie the Court of Appeal — such as in the instant case — do not constitute limited circumstances envisaged by r 137 (see paras 6, 13–14); MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
