JUDGMENT

Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor JC:

Introduction

[1] This is a criminal revision application brought by Lubricleum Sdn Bhd ("the applicant") pursuant to s 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC") against an order of the Sessions Court at Johor Bahru dated 30 June 2025 in case number JA-63-28-05/2024.

[2] Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement between the prosecution and one Ong Kong Hong ("the accused"), the learned Sessions Court Judge ordered the forfeiture of a Volvo motor lorry (Registration No PNH 2425) and a semi-trailer (Registration No T/N 8454) ("the Vehicles") to the Government of Malaysia.

[3] The applicant, as the registered owner of the Vehicles, seeks to set aside the forfeiture order on the grounds that the order was made in breach of the rules of natural justice and the applicant's constitutional right to property under art 13 of the Federal Constitution.

The Revisionary Jurisdiction

[4] The object of the revisionary powers of this Court is to ensure the accuracy, legality, and propriety of any finding, sentence, or order recorded by a subordinate Court . As observed by the High Court in Liaw Kwai Wah & Anor v. PP; [1987] 2 MLJ 69; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 163:

"...to confer upon criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment..."

[5] In the case of PP v. Kulasingam; [1974] 2 MLJ 26, Hashim Yeop A Sani J (as the Lordship then was) had spoken about the supervisory powers of the High Court :

"The powers of the High Court in revision are amply provided under s 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject only to sub-sections (ii) and (iii) thereof. The object of revisionary powers of the High Court is to confer upon the High Court a kind of "paternal or supervisory jurisdiction" in order to correct or prevent a miscarriage of justice. In a revision, the main question to be considered is whether substantial justice has been done or will be done and whether any order made by the lower Court should be interfered with in the interest of justice."

Statutory Provisions On Forfeiture

[6] The learned Sessions Court Judge exercised the power of forfeiture under s 26(1)(aa) of the Control of Supplies Act 1961 ("CSA 1961") which states:

"(1) Where any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the Court may order the confiscation in whole or in part of—... (aa) any property of the accused, vehicle, vessel or other article, by means of which the offence has been committed or which is intended to be used for the commission of an offence against this Act..."

[7] The word "may" in s 26(1) signifies that the power of forfeiture is discretionary. It is a settled principle that such discretion must be exercised judiciously.

[8] A judicious exercise of discretion mandates that the prosecution establish a clear and sufficient nexus between the subject property and the alleged unlawful activity. In PP v. Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd & Ors; [2018] 6 MLJ 37; [2019] 3 CLJ 650; [2018] 5 AMR 789, the Court of Appeal dismissed a forfeiture application because the Public Prosecutor failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the property was actually the proceeds of or connected with the predicate offences.

[9] The courts have consistently held that the discretion to order forfeiture must be exercised based on sound legal principles and the specific facts of the case. In Protasco Bhd v. PT Anglo Slavic Utama & Ors, the High Court emphasised that the discretion vested in the Court must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Scrutiny is required to ensure that the "ends of justice" are met, particularly when a party's property rights, which are protected under art 13 of the Federal Constitution are at stake.

Factual Background

[10] In the instant case, the accused was charged under s 21 of the Control of Supplies Act 196