Back
1975 MarsdenLR 333
Abdul Hamid J (delivering oral judgment):
Now, in this case, the appellant was charged with the following offences:-
(1) "That you on 1 February 1975 at about 4.20pm at BP Petrol Station, Jalan Gasing, in the District of Petaling Jaya, in the State of Selangor with another still at large, in furtherance of the common intention of all, robbed one Chua Siew Bee of cash $1,150, and at the time of committing the said robbery used a deadly weapon, to wit, one dagger, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 392 of the Penal Code read with ss. 34 and 397 of the Penal Code ."
(2) "That you on 3 May 1975 at about 3.30pm atNo. 27/A, Jalan 52/1 (Butterfly Hair Dressing Saloon), Petaling Jaya, in the State of Selangor, with one another (now in custody), in furtherance of the common intention of all, robbed one Loo Suan Tee of cash $400 and four gold chains valued at $1,100 and at the time of committing the said robbery used deadly weapons, to wit, one Firearm and one Bearing Scraper, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 392 of the Penal Code read with ss. 34 and 397 of the Penal Code ."
(3) "That you on 5 May 1975 at about 3.10pm atNo. 164, Jalan Chan Sow Lin, in the City of Kuala Lumpur, with one another (now in custody) in furtherance of the common intention of all, robbed one Ng Koon Leong of cash $9,000 and at the time of committing the said robbery used deadly weapons, to wit, One Revolver and One Dagger, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 392 of the Penal Code read with ss. 3 and 397 of the Penal Code ."
and
(4)"That you on 20 May 1975 at about 8.50pm atNo. 106, Jalan Bandar (Singapore Hair Dressing Saloon) in the City of Kuala Lumpur, with one another now in custody, in furtherance of the common intention of all, robbed one Yap Thoong Chean and others of one .32 Walther Automatic Pistol with six rounds of ammunition, One Rolex Watch valued at $5,200, One Diamond Ring valued at $2,800, One Gold Chain valued at $800, cash $1,400 and another gold chain valued at $100, and at the time of committing the said robbery used a deadly weapon, to wit, a firearm, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 392 of the Penal Code read with ss. 34 and 397 of the Penal Code ."
On conviction, the learned president sentenced the appellant to seven years' imprisonment on each charge with three strokes of the rotan, the imprisonment sentences to run consecutively. It is against these sentences that the appellant now appeals. Encik Lall Harcharan Singh Counsel for the appellant has urged the Court to consider certain mitigating factors and also to order that the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. On the other hand, the learned deputy public prosecutor has stressed the gravity of the offences committed and has submitted that, in this case, there is no question of repentance.
Insofar as this Court is concerned, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, it shall consider whether the sentences of the Court below were wrong in law or were they manifestly excessive on the facts and circumstances justifying interference. It is settled law that sentences should not be interfered with by the appellate Court merely because the individual presiding in the higher Court might, having personal views on the matter, have passed a different sentence.
Our system, as practised today, has vested the Magistrates and presidents with wide discretionary power in the matter of the amount of punishment. Such discretionary power must not, however, be exercised in complete disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case. In point of fact, the discretion must be exercised judicially. Now, in consideration of what I have said, the Court should not therefore interfere with the lower Court's discretion unless there is apparent on the fact of the record a manifest error either in law, or, in considering the fact
