Hashim Yeop A Sani J (delivering oral judgment):

The facts of the case are that on 20 May 1975 at about 11.20 a.m. a Police constable, PC 58206, arrested the accused in Kampong Jawa, Ipoh, and from his person were recovered 13 plastic tubes containing 3g of what was suspected to be heroin. The accused was released on bail the following day. The chemist's report tendered in the Sessions Court, Ipoh, on 25 November 1975 showed only 1.2g of heroin contained in 13 plastic tubes. The Special President amended the original charge as to the amount of heroin although this is not reflected in the certified copy before the Court. The accused pleaded guilty to the offence. In his mitigation the accused stated that this was his first offence and that he was threatened that if he did not sell the drugs he would be assaulted. The accused was bound over under s. 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code for one year in the sum of $750 with one surety. The accused's mother stood on surety.

The only point raised by Mr. Paramjit Singh worth considering is whether the Special President should have rejected the plea of guilty because the accused stated "that he would be assaulted" if he did not sell the drugs. Heng KimKhoon v. PP [1972] 1 MLJ 30

was cited as an example where the Judge in exercising his revisionary powers ordered a retrial because the accused had pleaded guilty under an erroneous view of the law. But it should be noted that that case and the other English cases cited therein concerned a plea in mitigation which affected an essential ingredient of the offence and that the explanation of the accused discloses no offence in law. This is not the case here. I have also examined the records and there is nothing therein to indicate any irregularity. What is left therefore is the question of sentence.

In respect of sentencing there can be only general guidelines. No two cases can have exactly the same facts to the minutest detail. Facts do differ from case to case and ultimately each case has to be decided on its own merits. In practice sentences do differ not only from case to case but also from Court to Court. All things being equal these variations are inevitable if only because of the human element involved. But, of course, there must be limits to permissible variations.

The principles to be applied in imposing sentence however are the same in every case. The High Court sitting in exercise of its revisionary powers will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence of the lower Court is either manifestly inadequate or grossly excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed on the record or to all the facts which the Court ought to take judicial notice of, that is to say, that the lower Court clearly has erred in applying the correct principles in the assessment of the sentence. It is a firmly established practice that the Court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have passed a different sentence.

In respect of offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, 1952, there has been a gradual change in the attitude of the legislature during the last few years. The Ordinance has been amended by Parliament a number of times, in 1971 (by Act A112 of 1972) then in 1973 (by Act A194 of 1973) and then in 1975 (by Act A293 of 1975). At the moment there is yet another amendment which is awaiting the Royal Assent. In the legislative exercise in 1973 penalties attached to the various offences under the law were enhanced. For the offence of possession of any dangerous drugs under s. 12(2) of the Ordinance, for example, the penalty was increased from a maximum of $10,000 fine to a maximum of $20,000 fine and the maximum imprisonment was increased from three years to five years. In the legislative exercise in 1975, among other things, a new provision (new s. 39A) was inserted whereby it is provided that whoever is convicted of an offence under the Ordinance an