JUDGMENT

KN Segara JC:

This appeal before me is against the decision of the learned Magistrate, Jitra, made on 15 February 1994 arising from the purported proceedings under s. 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") initiated by him on 24 January 1994 and 2 February 1994, at the instance of the appellants.

At the very outset I had intimated to Counsel for both the appellants and the respondents that this matter before me cannot be proceeded as an appeal as there is no statutory provision for an appeal in respect of any order or decision by the learned Magistrate in the exercise of his powers under s. 99 CPC. Mr. G.S. Nijar, Counsel for the appellants, has very correctly conceded that this matter should not be dealt with as an appeal. He urged the Court to exercise its powers of revision under s. 323 CPC and s. 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 .

Under s. 307 CPC, the relevant part of which reads:

.... any person who is dissatisfied with any judgment, sentence or order pronounced by any Magistrate's Court in a criminal case or matter to which he is a party may prefer an appeal to the High ...

What is a criminal case (cause) or matter? In Amand v. Home Secretary and Minister of Defence [1943] AC 147 at 162 Lord Wright said:

The principle which I deduce from the authorities cited and the other relevant authorities which I have considered, is that if the cause or matter is one which, if carried to its conclusion, might result in the conviction of the person charged and in a sentence of some punishment such as, imprisonment or fine, it is a 'criminal cause or matter'.

Clearly, the appellants herein do not have a right of appeal.Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, at liminis. Nevertheless, having gone through the record of appeal, I am very much concerned and anxious over the regularity or otherwise of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, at Jitra. I shall take this opportunity to exercise my general powers of revision.

The jurisdiction conferred upon a Magistrate under ss. 99, 100 and 101 of the CPC to deal with disputes concerning immovable property is an exceptional one and the provisions of the sections should, therefore, be strictly followed when any action is taken thereunder.The Magistrate must exercise the powers strictly, within the four-corners of the relevant provisions.Therefore, when the procedures laid down have been overlooked, any action taken by the Magistrate must be held to be without jurisdiction.The Magistrate should avoid slipshod or perfunctory procedure in dealing with cases under s. 99 CPC. He should not deal with any police report, any information or any complaint merely for the sake of getting through a duty, in a superficial and mechanical manner.This, unfortunately, is what appears to have occurred in this case, as will be shortly seen.

Section 99 (together with s. 100 CPC) is to be used for deciding disputes as to possession and not title regarding immovable property between private parties.When the dispute is between the Government and a private party, s. 99 CPC is inapplicable.When the private party wants to maintain his possession against the Government, he should move the High Court for a declaration under O. 15 r. 16, of the Rules of the High , 1980 . A declaratory relief is about the only remedy available to him because under s. 29(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act, 1956 , the Court shall not make any order for the recovery of the land against the Government in any proceedings but may only make a declaration of a private party's rights to title or possession as against the Government (see also Pemungut Hasil Tanah Daerah Barat Daya, Penang v. Kam Gin Paik & Ors.[1986] 1 MLRA 152, [1986] 1 MLJ 362; [1986] CLJ 33).

The mere fact that a dispute exists between the parties, which is obviously of a civil nature, would not warrant the Magistrate to assume jurisdiction and initiate proceedings under s. 99 CPC.

Section 99 and s. 100 of the CPC provide a speedy