NAME: Nabilah Binti N.Hasnol ID NO. : 2018200184TEST 1 (LAW 446)i) According to the cases, there are 2 parties that involve in this situation.

Which is Pak Belalang and Che Ta. Pak Belalang is the plaintiff while Che Ta was the defendant. Pak Belalang wishes to take an action against Che Ta for the damages of his farm and watermelons, which cost losses up to RM 2 million. Based on the situation, the court that will hear the matter is High Court. In Malaysia, the High Court are the third-highest courts according to the hierarchy os the courts. In Article 121 of Federal Constitution,provide that there are two high courts of coordinate jurisdiction, one was the High Court in Malaysia and the other one is High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. Federal Constitution (FC) also known as a written constitution, where it declared that itself was the supreme law of the Federation, based on Article 4(1) Federal Constitution.

Which any law passed after MerdekaDay is inconsistent with this constitution shall,to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. If there are conflict with the Federal Constitution, to the extent of its inconsistency the law is void. Continue with the situation given, the High Court will hear the matter in original jurisdiction with the claim that worth more than RM 250 000. According to civil jurisdiction in section 23 and section 24. By referring to the situation given, where Pak Belalang suffered losses RM 2 million, it already fulfil the condition above to enter the jurisdiction of the court. When this case was failed in High Court, it will be pass out to Court of Appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It has power to hear civil in section 68 that appeals origination from the High Court and last, if it still failed Pak Belalang can bring this case up to Federal Court, where has power to hear civil and criminal appeals from the Court of Appeal.

ii) In the Tanggang’s case there are also involve 2 parties, which one of it Tanggang as a defendant. When Tanggang was arrested and charged with theft under the penal code it touching the moral value. Where moral is not be enforced by the court, but in this case it has a relation between law and moral. Law is related the behaviour that created the rules and enforced through social or governmental institutions. Law prescribes what are the proper behaviour for human being. In this situation, the 1st class magistrate will hear the Tanggang’s case.

1st class magistrate is applicable in subordinate courts Act 1948. Which the suborbinate courts have original jurisdiction only where cases are heard in the court for the first time. 1st class magistrate may try offences where the maximum of imprisonment does not exceed 10 years of offences or punishable with fine only. Under section 379 A of Malaysian penal code where it provided with the deals with the punishment for theft of the motor vehicle, when Tanggang found guilty he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 1 year and not more than 7 year. It also will be liable to fine up to RM 10 000.. However, if they failed to prove that Tanggang is guilty, it will bring up the case to the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

It has power to hear appeals on civil and criminal cases like Tanggang’s cases originating from the subordinate courts. But if they still failed there are no futher appeal to the Court of Appeal, that must be continue only to questioning of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal.