Abdul Hamid J:

[1] The appellant was charged in the Sessions Court on the following charges:

(1) That you, on 7 December 1973 at about 2.15pm at Jalan San Peng, Kuala Lumpur, in the State of Selangor, with three others still at large, in furtherance of a common intention as defined under s 34 of the Penal Code, robbed one S Joseph, a Clerk with the Dewan Bandaraya, Kuala Lumpur, of cash $71.820.31 and at the time of committing the said robbery used deadly weapons, to wit 'Four Revolvers' and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 392 of the Penal Code, to be read in conjunction with s 397 of the Penal Code.

(2) That you on 11 April 1975 at about 11.15pm at Flat No B.6/2, Khoon Lin Court, off Pasar Road, in the city of Kuala Lumpur, not being a person subject to the provisions of s 6 of the Arms Act No 21/60, did have unlawful possession of a firearm, to wit, one 'STAR 7.65mm Automatic Pistol in contravention of the provisions of s 3(1) of the said Act and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable s 8 of the Firearms (Increased Penalties) (Amendment) Act No 256 of 1974.

(3) That you on 11 April 1975 at about 11.15pm at Flat No B 6/2, Khoon Lin Court, off Pasar Road, in the city of Kuala Lumpur, not being a person subjected to the provisions of s 6 of the Arms Act No 21/1960, did have in your possession 30 rounds of 7.65mm ammunition in contravention of the provision of s 3(1) of the said Act and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 9(a) of the Arms Act No 2l/l960."

[2] The learned president convicted the appellant on all the charges and sentenced him to - (a) seven years' imprisonment and five strokes, (b) ten years' imprisonment and six strokes and (c) seven years' imprisonment respectively.

[3] The appeal is against sentence. The main grounds upon which the appellant is seeking that the sentences passed by the learned president be reversed are that the learned president erred in law - (1) when she allowed herself to be influenced by the alleged increase of late of armed robberies in the city when no such evidence was ever led by witness or witnesses for the prosecution on record; (2) when she took judicial notice of the fact that - "Hardly a day has passed without such incidents being reported in the newspapers when there was no evidence on record to support such a finding; and (3) in failing to order that the sentences imposed in the second charge of Arrest Case No 17/1975 to run concurrently.

[4] In my judgment there is absolutely no merit in this appeal. It is evident from the learned president's grounds of judgment that she took into account two main factors in considering the appropriate sentences to be imposed. In the first place, the learned president took the view that it was in the public interest that deterrent sentences be imposed. In the Court below the prosecuting officer submitted that there were 677 robberies within a period of four months in Kuala Lumpur alone and half of them were armed robberies. The learned president evidently took this fact into account. It is true that the learned president was somewhat influenced by this fact. To my mind it is a matter of common knowledge and a notorious fact that there have been of late an increase in armed robberies. The learned president, I think, acted correctly when she took this fact into account and there is therefore absolutely no valid ground to say that she had erred in law.

2

"The matter of which a Court will take judicial notice must be a subject of common and general knowledge. In other words, judicial knowledge of facts is measured by general knowledge of the same facts. A fact is said to be generally recognised or known when its existence or operation is accepted by the public without qualification or contention. The test