[2021] 2 MLRA Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 473 its integrity in carrying out judicial functions. As submitted by the Applicant, the comments were not made within the limit of reasonable courtesy or decency and far from good faith. Such impugned comments if allowed to continue would undermine public confidence in the Judiciary. It will ridicule, scandalise and offend the integrity of this institution. [151] There is no maximum or minimum sentence to be imposed for a person who commits contempt of court. In deciding an appropriate sentence on the facts of this case, foremost is public interest. In Chung Onn v. Wee Tian Peng [1996] 3 MLRH 782, Low Hop Bing J (later JCA) held that under art 126 of the Federal Constitution and s 13 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, there is no statutory limit on fine. In assessing the appropriate fine, what must be taken into account would be the damage done to public interest, in addition to the seriousness of the contempt. His Lordship also went on to observe that the offence of the contempt of court is an interference with the administration of justice and the punishment to be meted out is not for the purpose of vindicating the dignity of the court, but to prevent the improper interference. [152] In our view an appropriate sentence serves public interest in two ways. It may deter others from the temptation to commit such crime where the punishment is negligible, or it may deter that particular criminal from repeating the same crime. Not only regarding each crime, but in regard to each criminal the court always has the right and duty to decide whether to be lenient or severe. [153] In Attorney General Of Malaysia v. Dato’ See Teow Chuan & Ors [2018] 4 MLRA 503, two lawyers Mr VK Lingam, Mr Thisinayagam plus 20 company contributories were committed for contempt of court. In a review application before this Court, the contributories (about 20 of them) through their lawyers VK Lingam and Thisinayagam cited the basis for review was anchored on alleged plagiarism and substantially a reproduction without attribution to the liquidators’ written submission. The complaint against the contemnors being that the relevant affidavits filed was affirmed on the advice of their lawyers contained statements in contempt of the Federal Court, which would scandalise the Federal Court and subvert the administration of justice. After various postponements, lawyer Thisinayagam and all the contributories except three conceded to the contempt charges. [154] After hearing the mitigation in that case, this court ordered all the contributories present be fined with RM100,000.00 each and in default eight months’ imprisonment. Lawyer VK Lingam and three other contributories were absent. Relying on decided authority this court proceeded to impose sentence in absentia to the absent contemnors the similar sentence of RM100,000.00 or in default eight months’ imprisonment. Against VK Lingam a sentence of six months’ imprisonment was imposed. [155] Reference is also made to the cases of Hoslan Hussin v. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan [2012] 2 MLRA 701. This was a conviction for contempt in the face of the court when the contemnor had thrown a pair of shoes towards