Pendakwa Raya v AZAHAR BIN OSMAN

ka-45-4-05-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 21 July 2025 • KA-45-4-05/2021 • 23 min read
8 cases cited (0 SG, 8 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (4)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Illustrates how a court calibrates concurrent custodial sentences across multiple linked drug charges following a negotiated plea to reduced possession charges, and the statutory bar on caning an offender over the age of fifty.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar concerns the sentencing of an accused who faced a total of six charges across three case numbers, tried together, involving four different types of dangerous drugs — four charges of possession and two of trafficking under the Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952). This case number carried a charge of possession under seksyen 6 punishable under subseksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 6 punishable under subsection 39A(2)), arising from drugs found at a house in the Langkawi district of Kedah in the early hours of 28 February 2020. As part of the disposal of the whole set of charges, the prosecution offered the accused reduced possession charges in place of the two trafficking charges on condition that he pleaded guilty, whereupon the original charges would be withdrawn, and the accused pleaded guilty.

In arriving at sentence the Court weighed the gravity of the offences and the quantity and variety of the drugs against the mitigation, including the accused's guilty plea, which spares the court's time and signals a measure of remorse, and the totality of the sentences to be imposed across the linked cases. It also had regard to the statutory restriction on caning for older offenders.

For the charge in this case number, the Court imposed eleven years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, a term it considered appropriate, reasonable and not manifestly excessive when set against the sentences imposed in the companion cases arising from the same course of conduct. No caning was ordered because the accused was more than fifty years of age, in accordance with subseksyen 289(c) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (subsection 289(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code). The judgment is a useful illustration of how a court fashions and calibrates concurrent custodial sentences across multiple linked drug charges following a negotiated plea to reduced possession charges, and of the statutory bar on caning an offender over the age of fifty.

What sentence was imposed for the charge in this case?

The Court imposed eleven years' imprisonment from the date of arrest for the possession charge under section 6 punishable under subsection 39A(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, a term it considered appropriate and not manifestly excessive alongside the sentences in the companion cases; no caning was ordered because the accused was over fifty, under subsection 289(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

How did this charge fit into the overall disposal?

It was one of six charges across three case numbers, involving four types of dangerous drugs, disposed of together after the prosecution offered reduced possession charges in place of the two trafficking charges on condition the accused pleaded guilty, whereupon he did and the original charges were withdrawn.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (8)

MY (8)
[1954] 1 MLJ 86 [1955] 1 MLJ 24 [1975] 2 MLJ 134 [1976] 2 MLJ 256 [1981] 1 MLJ 315 [2004] 4 MLJ 249 [2007] 3 MLJ 730 [2015] 9 CLJ 221

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ka-45-4-05-2021)