JUDGMENT

Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor JC:

[1] The Applicant, Fazil @ Malindo bin Faizal, was convicted in the Sessions Court Kota Tinggi on 29 January 2026, pursuant to s 7(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Dangerous Weapons Act 1958 (Act 357) for possession of a samurai sword without lawful authority. Upon a plea of guilt, he was sentenced to five (5) years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, 26 January 2026 together with one (1) stroke of whipping.

[2] The Applicant, through the Prisons department filed this criminal revision application by way of a letter dated 30 March 2026 pursuant to s 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), challenging the legality of the sentence of whipping.

[3] Section 325 CPC states:

"A Judge may, in any case the record of the proceedings of which has been called for by himself or which otherwise comes to his knowledge, in his discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred by ss 311, 315, 316 and 317 of this Code"

Issue

[4] The central issue before this Court is whether the Sessions Court erred in law by imposing a sentence of whipping when s 7(1) of Act 357 prescribes only imprisonment.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

[5] Section 7(1) Act 357 provides:

"... boleh, apabila disabitkan, dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak kurang daripada lima tahun dan tidak lebih daripada sepuluh tahun."

[6] It is clear that the statute prescribes only imprisonment, with no provision for corporal punishment.

[7] Sections 31 and 35 CPC confer supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction upon the High Court over subordinate courts. Section 325 empowers the High Court to intervene where an order is prejudicial to the accused, provided the accused is given an opportunity to be heard. The High Court has the jurisdiction to intervene in instances where the subordinate courts had erred in the exercise of their judicial functions.

a) Section 31 CPC states:

"The High Court may exercise powers of revision in respect of criminal proceedings and matters in subordinate courts..."

b) Section 35 CPC provides:

"The High Court shall have general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all subordinate courts..."

[8] The High Court 's power of revision is also provided for under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964:

31. "The High Court may exercise powers of revision in respect of criminal proceedings and matters in subordinate courts in accordance with any law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure."

[9] During the course of this application, the learned DPP Foo Fang Leong had, at the outset, conceded that the Sessions Judge's sentence of whipping was erroneous.

[10] It appears that the learned Sessions Judge had meted out the sentence based on what was erroneously stated in the charge sheet. The charge sheet reads as follows:

PERTUDUHAN:

BAHAWA KAMU PADA 26 January 2026, JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.15 TENGAH MALAM, DI RUMAH NOMBOR 452, BLOK 20, FELDA AIR TAWAR 3, DI DALAM DAERAH KOTA TINGGI, DI DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, TELAH DIDAPATI DALAM MILIKAN KAMU SENJATA BERBAHAYA IAITU SEBILAH PEDANG SAMURAI BERSARUNG KAYU BERUKURAN LEBIH KURANG 76CM TANPA KEBENARAN YANG SAH. OLEH ITU, KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH s 7(1) AKTA BAHAN-BAHAN KAKISAN DAN LETUPAN DAN SENJATA BERBAHAYA 1958 (AKTA 357).

HUKUMAN:

PENJARA UNTUK SUATU TEMPOH TIDAK KURANG DARIPADA LIMA TAHUN DAN TIDAK MELEBIHI SEPULUH TAHUN DAN DISEBAT.

[11] A charge sheet must clearly and accurately reflect the offence and the punishment prescribed by statute. Any deviation risks misleading the accused and undermining the fairness of the proceedings. In this case, the inclusion of whipping in the charge sheet was a misstatement of law.

Authorities

[12] In Public Prosecutor v. Low Ah Sang; [1962] 1 MLJ 13 at p 15, Hashim J observed:

"I shall now deal with the charge and the order of the learned President. In my opinion the charge was very badly drafted. In this respect I would commend all presidents of sessions courts and magistra