JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by Muhammad Zahier Zakwan bin Zainal Abidin ("the appellant") against the ruling of the learned Sessions Court Judge, Puan Hidayatul Syuhada binti Shamsudin ("the learned judge"), delivered on 28 November 2025 in the Sessions Court of Johor Bahru (Criminal Application No: JA-62-163-11/2024). The appellant had raised a preliminary objection challenging the competency of the proceedings before that Court . The learned judge dismissed the objection and ordered the matter to proceed to trial, with trial dates fixed for 8, 9 and 10 June 2026.

[2] The appeal was heard on 26 February 2026, upon which date the Court reserved its decision. The decision was delivered on 5 March 2026. For the appellant, the appeal was argued by Dato' Abdul Raman bin Haji Saad, Datuk Yaacob bin Haji Md Sam, Haji Yunos Shariff and Zainur Syazwani of Tetuan Abdul Raman Saad & Associates. The respondent was represented at the hearing by Deputy Public Prosecutor Nevina Ravichandran of the Johor State Legal Adviser's Office; at the delivery of the decision, the respondent was represented by Deputy Public Prosecutor Zuhainie binti Zull Kafli. The Court records its gratitude to counsel on both sides for their thorough written and oral submissions.

[3] Having carefully considered all the materials and submissions before me, I am satisfied that the appeal is without merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The ruling of the learned Sessions Court Judge dismissing the preliminary objection is affirmed, and the case shall proceed to trial as directed. My reasons follow.

Preliminary Matter: Nature And Scope Of This Appeal

[4] Before turning to the substance of the appeal, it is necessary to delineate the proper scope of the enquiry before this Court . This appeal concerns only the correctness in law of the learned judge's decision to dismiss a preliminary objection. It is not an appeal against conviction or acquittal following a full trial. No prosecution evidence has been adduced, no prima facie ruling has been made, and the trial has not commenced. The sole question is whether the learned judge was correct in law to dismiss the preliminary objection.

[5] The issues raised are pure questions of law. There are no findings of fact to which appellate deference is owed, and this Court applies the law afresh without deference to the Court below.

The Charge

[6] The charge as framed and preferred against the appellant in the Sessions Court reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 11 Februari 2024 jam lebih kurang 4.40 petang, di Jalan Dato Jaafar, Larkin di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim telah mempamer lambang yang tertera perkataan Darjah Indera Mahkota Pahang D.I.M.P Dato' pada bahagian hadapan dan belakang motokar nombor pendaftaran UUU 9839 tanpa kebenaran bertulis DYMM Sultan Pahang. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 3(1)(d) Enakmen Lambang, Gelaran atau Anugerah (Mencegah Penggunaan Tidak Wajar) Pahang 2017 [Enakmen No 18 Tahun 2017] dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 3(3) Enakmen yang sama.

Hukuman di atas kesalahan tersebut sekiranya sabit kesalahan kamu boleh didenda tidak kurang RM250,000.00 dan tidak melebihi RM500,000.00 atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak kurang daripada satu tahun dan tidak melebihi lima tahun atau kedua-duanya."

[7] For ready reference, s 3(1)(d) of the Pahang Emblems, Titles or Awards (Prevention of Improper Use) Enactment 2017 (Enactment No 18 of 2017) ("the Enactment") provides:

"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any written law, no person shall, except with the written permission of His Royal Highness Sultan:

(d) display on or affix to any vehicle, any material containing any emblem, title or award or any replica thereof."

[8] Section 3(3) provides that any person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than RM250,000.00 and not more