MUHAMMAD AISMAT AMIR BIN ZAINAL v Pendakwa Raya

b-05sh-397-09-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 13 January 2025 • B-05(SH)-397-09/2023 • 15 min read
2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Outcome

Tertuduh kedua dibebaskan selepas permohonan Writ of Habeas Corpus yang difailkan oleh tertuduh kedua dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam. [44] Tertuduh kedua tidak dibebaskan sebaliknya terus ditahan di Penjara Sungai Buloh sehingga beliau dituduh untuk kes ini. [45] Tertuduh kedua dipukul selepas ditangkap dan pihak polis memaksanya untuk menandatangani dokumen-dokumen yang beliau tidak tahu isi kandungannya.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (b-05sh-397-09-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Pertama) - seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Kedua) - Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1962 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 30(5) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Ketiga) - Timbalan Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan Pertuduhan Pertama (Pindaan) untuk Pertuduhan Pertama dibawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kedua-dua perayu menarik balik rayuan terhadap pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga – Mahkamah mempertimbangkan mitigasi peringanan hukuman oleh kedua-dua perayu serta faktor pemberatan seperti kepentingan awam, keseriusan kesalahan dan trend hukuman - Rayuan perayu-perayu bagi pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga dibatalkan - Rayuan perayu-perayu bagi pertuduhan pertama dibenarkan - Perayu-perayu didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kedua-dua perayu dikenakan hukuman pemenjaraan selama sembilan (9) tahun berkuatkuasa dari tarikh tangkap (7 Oktober 2020) dan sepuluh (10) kali sebatan.

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali Coram

Counsel (4)

Kit & Associates Firm Chris Kooi Counsel Appellant Ivy Chin Counsel Appellant Tetralina binti Ahmed Fauzi Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Muhammad Aismat Amir bin Zainal Appellant

Case Significance

A companion appeal in the same consolidated set, confirming that where the prosecution tenders an amended section 6 charge in place of a section 39B trafficking count, the Court of Appeal may quash a life sentence and re-sentence to a fixed custodial term calibrated against public-interest aggravating factors.

This Court of Appeal judgment forms part of the same set of consolidated criminal appeals (Rayuan Jenayah B-05(SH)-393 to 397 of 2023) in which two appellants challenged convictions and sentences originating in the High Court at Klang, Selangor. The proceedings concerned a joint prosecution on three counts, the most serious being trafficking in 502.9 grams of cannabis under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), read with seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code). The two remaining counts were brought under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act and under section 30(3) of the Akta Racun 1962 (Poisons Act 1962). The High Court had convicted on the trafficking count and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment and twelve strokes of the cane. The central development on appeal was the prosecution's tender of a Pertuduhan Pertama (Pindaan) — an amended first charge — reducing the trafficking count to an offence under section 6 of the Act punishable under section 39A(2). The appellants elected to withdraw their appeals against the second and third charges, which were dismissed, leaving the amended first charge as the live issue. The panel allowed the appeal on that charge, quashing the section 39B conviction and life sentence, and substituted a conviction under section 6 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. Turning to sentence, the Court expressly weighed the mitigation offered by both appellants against aggravating factors it framed as kepentingan awam (the public interest), the gravity of the offence, and the sentencing trend disclosed by the authorities it reviewed. Applying that balance, it imposed on each appellant nine years' imprisonment running from the date of arrest on 7 October 2020, together with ten strokes of the cane, replacing the original capital-adjacent disposition. The appeal was heard by a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, which delivered a unanimous decision, and the reasoning tracks that given in the parallel appeals disposed of at the same time.

Summary

This is the companion appeal to B-05(SH)-395-09/2023 for the same appellant Muhammad Aismat Amir on the third charge (poison possession). The appeals for the lesser charges were withdrawn by the appellants. The Court of Appeal struck out these companion appeals.

How did the charge against the appellants change between the High Court and the Court of Appeal?

At first instance the High Court convicted the appellants of trafficking 502.9 grams of cannabis under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. On appeal the Deputy Public Prosecutor tendered an amended first charge reducing that count to an offence under section 6 of the Act, punishable under section 39A(2) and read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on this charge, set aside the trafficking conviction and life sentence, and convicted both appellants on the amended section 6 charge instead.

What became of the second and third charges?

Both appellants withdrew their appeals against the second charge under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the third charge under section 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1962. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeals on those two counts, so that only the amended first charge remained in contention and formed the basis of the revised sentence of nine years' imprisonment and ten strokes of the cane.

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)
[2016] MLJU 227 [2017] MLJU 792

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (b-05sh-397-09-2023)