Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT

[1]This a decision on an application for revision brought by the Applicant who was charged at the Melaka Sessions Court with 4 offences under Section 17(a)Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2003prima facie case under all the charges against the Applicant and consequently called the Applicant to enter his defence.

[2]The primary ground for this Application centers around the alleged failure of the Trial Judge in judicially and critically examining the Prosecution’s evidence and in arriving at a conclusion that the elements of the offence under Section 17(a)MACC Actsection 50MACC ActSection 50MACC Act

[3]The Applicant seeks to move this Court to find that the Trial Judge’s finding of prima facie was not supported by evidence, manifestly wrong and illegal. The Applicant claims that the Trial Judge committed material failures in evaluating the Prosecution’s evidence. These failures are:-

(a)the incorrect application of presumption under section 50MACC Act

(b)failure to consider that there was selective prosecution against the Applicant;

(c)failure to appreciate whether or not the Applicant had the necessary criminal intention; and

(d)failure to consider inconsistencies in the Prosecution evidence.

It is argued that these failures amounted to substantial injustice on the Applicant and therefore the Applicant should not have been ordered to enter his defence.

[4]Based on those reasons, the Applicant contends that this Court has the necessary revisionary powers under sections 35Courts of Judicature Act 1964prima facie and to set aside the same and following that acquit him.

ARGUMENTS OF PARTIESBy the Applicant

[5]The Applicant’s main contention in this Application is that under section 35CJAprima facie. Section 35

“...the High Court shall have general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all subordinate courts, and may in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, if it appears desirable in the interests of justice, either of its own motion or at the instance of any party or person interested, at any stage in any matter or proceeding, whether civil or criminal...”

[6]Thus where it is desirable to serve the interest of justice, it is argued that this Court should be ready and willing to interfere with any decision on the finding of a prima facie wrongfully or illegally made by the trial Court. The words used in section 35CJAsection 323CPCSection 323 (1)CPC

“A Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of that subordinate Court.

[7]Reference was made to the decision in and Ng Siam Cheng Suffiah v. PP

“[37] With respect, both cases cited by the respondent appeared to have been read outside of their proper contexts. In any event, the applicable case law on s 370, including my earlier decision of Jeremy Lee ([32] supra), supports the view that the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction is wide and not limited to final orders.

[38] In Public Prosecutor v. Sollihin bin Anhar Jay Yong Kwang J (as he then was) considered that the revisionary powers of the High Court were sufficiently broad to allow it to reverse a decision by the State Courts to grant bail to an accused. In reaching this decision, Jay J noted at [14] that both parties had agreed that a decision arrived at in relation to a bail application was interlocutory in nature and did not amount to a judgment or order of finality from which an avenue for appeal arises. The lack of finality in the State Courts’ decision was of no significance.

[39] In Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v. Public Prosecutor and another matter (“Rajendar”), Sundaresh Menon CJ was faced with the question of whether the Magistrate had appropriately exercised her discretion