KURSUS

UUK4043 TATACARA JENAYAH II

SEMESTER II SESI 2022/2023

KELAS TUTORIAL
KHAMIS (2 PM-3 PM)

PENSYARAH
DR. MUHAMAD SAYUTI BIN HASSAN

TAJUK KES

MOHAMAD FARID ABDUL HALIM DAN PENDAKWA RAYA [2023] 1 LNS

149

PELAJAR
NUR AMIRA BATRISYIA BINTI MOHAMAD RAFI (A174439)

FIRMA
TETUAN FARIDAH SHAHNAZ (FIRMA 3)
 Mohamad Farid Abdul Halim dan Pendakwa Raya [2023] 1 LNS 149
High Court Sungai Petani
Judicial Commissioner, Narkunavathy Sundareson

Facts:

The appellant in this case had been charged with the offence under section 15 (1)(a) under the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The appellant had been convicted in 2018 of the offence under section
39C(1)(C) of the same Act and been given sentence of 5 years imprisonment and one whipping.
The appellant had pleaded guilty and had been convicted of the offence. The appellant appealed
for mitigation of the sentence passed by the Court which is eight years of imprisonment three
whipping and two years of surveillance order.

Issue(s) on Criminal Procedure:

Whether the sentence passed by the High Court can be mitigated and lighter punishment can be
imposed towards appellant?

Appellant’s Argument(s):

- Appellant had raised up issues relating to the evidence adduced is not related to the exhibit
adduced to the Court, but the Court contended that the scope of argument should only be
limited to the sentence only.
- The appellant contended that he regretted and will not repeat the same mistake again and
that he deserves a second chance.
- He also contended that he is the head of the family, and he is currently supporting her
mother who is decrepit.

Respondent Argument(s):

- The respondent had referred the Court to section 39 (C) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
and the appellant’s previous conviction and requested for the sentence to be stayed.
Decision:

- The Court held the case in favour of the respondent and the Court held that the sentence
passed by the Court was reasonable taking into account the previous convictions that the
appellant had.

Ground(s) of Decision:

- The sentence passed must be maintained by the Court unless the Court had erred in passing
the sentence due to mistake of law or is irrelevant to the facts or condition of the case.
- Based on Section 39 (C) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the previous sentence of
five years imprisonment and one whipping, the sentence passed is considered as reasonable
and light.