Zamani A Rahim J:

[1]The appellant (‘accused’) was jointly charged with trafficking a child, Hafiza Aqilah bt Abdullah, aged two months, an offence under s 14Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007s 34Penal Code

Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 26 Jun 2009, jam lebih kurang 10.30 pagi bertempat di Blok W, Taman Pelangi, Bukit Tengah, dalam Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah, dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah memperdagangkan seorang kanak-kanak perempuan Hafiza Aqilah binti Abdullah, Sijil Kelahiran No. CC 97838 yang berusia 2 bulan. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 14Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang 2007Kanun Keseksaan

[2]At the commencement of the trial, the accused was jointly charged with one Lindawati bt Rezuan, an Indonesian national and half-way through the prosecution’s case, the said Lindawati had changed her plea to one of guilty. She was found guilty, convicted and she was sentenced to three years imprisonment from the date of arrest. Lindawati had turned into a crown witness and testified for the prosecution. She was SP5.

[3]There is no necessity for me to narrate the facts of the prosecution’s case, suffice to say that at the end of the whole trial, the accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment with effect from the date of conviction ie 24 August 2011.

[4]Hence this appeal.

[5]This is yet another problem in drawing up a valid and proper charge for offences, outside the Penal Code. This is a case under the Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act 2007Basri bin Md Desa v Public Prosecutor

The problem of formulating a legally correct charge do at times crop up in the magistrate’s and sessions courts. This problem may be avoided if the prosecuting officers or learned deputies, who frame the charges are meticulous and address their mind to them. When charges are brought and read in courts, the judges of the sessions courts and magistrates must ensure that the charges are properly worded in accordance with the wordings of the statute under which the accused or offender is charged. Extra attention must be given to charges which involved rare and unfamiliar offences. If charges are found to be defective in law, a short adjournment may be sought to have them rectified. I would also advise the prosecuting officers or learned deputies to refer to Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes for specimen charges of offences under our Penal Code or better still to compile a correct specimen of charges for offences under our Penal Code and for various offences under other statutes such as Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Corruption Act 1997, Immigration Act 1963, Customs Act 1967 etc.

[6]In Santosh Kumari v State of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors (2011) 9 SCC 234 which was reported in

The provisions relating to framing of charge against the accused before the trial commences, are contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (1933 AD) which is applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The statute requires that every charge framed under the said Code should state the offence with which the accused is charged and if the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence should also be described in the charge by that name only. The statute further requires that the law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed has to be mentioned in the charge. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy the exact nature of the charge brought against him. The object of the statement of particulars to be mentioned in the charge is to enable the accused person to know the substantive charge he will have to meet and to be ready for it before the evidence is given. The extent of the particulars necessary to be given in the charge depends upon the facts and the circumstances of each case.

It is well-settled law that in drawing up a charge, all verbiage should be avoided. Howe