JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. v 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN 2. ) Pendakwa Raya

jb-41ors-4-09-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 January 2026 • JB-41(Ors)-4-09/2025 • 4 min read

Catchwords

Rayuan terhadap penolakan permohonan di bawah Seksyen 80(3) Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 (APAD) 2010) Budi bicara untuk kembalikan kenderaan yang disita – faktor-faktor yang perlu diambil kira. Jaminan dan syarat-syarat yang perlu diikuti sebelum pelepasan.

Practice Areas

Rayuan terhadap penolakan permohonan di bawah Seksyen 80(3) Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 (APAD) 2010) Budi bicara untuk kembalikan kenderaan yang disita Jaminan dan syarat-syarat yang perlu diikuti sebelum pelepasan.

Judges (1)

Kalyana Kumar Sockalingam Delivered

Counsel (3)

Azlan Bohari & Co. Firm Shah Wira bin Abdul Halim Counsel Appellant Siti Asmah binti Zainal Ariffin Counsel Prosecution

Parties (3)

JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE Sdn Bhd Appellant PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN Respondent Pendakwa Raya Respondent

Case Significance

JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. v 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JAL... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 28, 2026 (citation: jb-41ors-4-09-2025). <p>The appellant company appealed after the Magistrate's Court refused its application under Section 80(3) of the Land Public Transport Act 2010 (APAD 2010) for temporary release of a seized motor lorry pending disposal of overweight charges. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding no reasonable grounds to refuse release and that the appellant would suffer financial hardship without the vehicle. The lorry was ordered released subject to conditions including no sale, no alteration, and return The case was decided by Kalyana Kumar Sockalingam. Counsel appearing: Shah Wira bin Abdul Halim (counsel for appellant), Siti Asmah binti Zainal Ariffin (prosecution counsel).

Key issues: Rayuan terhadap penolakan permohonan di bawah Seksyen 80(3) Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 (APAD) 2010).

Summary

The appellant company appealed after the Magistrate's Court refused its application under Section 80(3) of the Land Public Transport Act 2010 (APAD 2010) for temporary release of a seized motor lorry pending disposal of overweight charges. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding no reasonable grounds to refuse release and that the appellant would suffer financial hardship without the vehicle. The lorry was ordered released subject to conditions including no sale, no alteration, and return upon demand.

What was the outcome of JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. v 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JAL...?

<p>The appellant company appealed after the Magistrate's Court refused its application under Section 80(3) of the Land Public Transport Act 2010 (APAD...