NORAZIZUL BIN M YOUSOF

NORAZIZUL BIN M YOUSOF

Accused's guilty pleas were properly and voluntarily recorded; the date error in the second charge caused no prejudice and was cured under section 422 CPC; each offence involved different victims and separate transactions so sentences for each count were not concurrent; imposed the statutory minimum of one year imprisonment per count to run consecutively (total three years) and one stroke of whipping per count to run consecutively based on seriousness, modus operandi, deterrence and public interest.

Citation
MC-83-376-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused/appellant: Norazizul bin M Yousof
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 June 2025
Case Number
MC-83-376-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Cheating (section 420 Penal Code) / Sentencing; Grounds of Judgment (appeals Filed to High Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted on three counts under section 420 Penal Code and sentenced.
Legal Topics
Cheating (section 420 Penal Code), Guilty Plea Standards, Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentencing, Whipping Sentence Execution, Defective Charge/date Error (section 422 Cpc)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Law Procedure (criminal Procedure Code) Cheating (section 420 Penal Code) Guilty Plea Standards Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentencing Whipping Sentence Execution Defective Charge/date Error (section 422 Cpc)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Norazizul bin M Yousof

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Cheating (section 420 Penal Code) / Sentencing; Grounds of Judgment (appeals Filed to High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's guilty pleas were properly recorded and unequivocal
  2. 2 Whether the date error in the second charge rendered the charge defective or prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether section 422/156 CPC cure the minor defect in the charge

Ratio Decidendi

Accused's guilty pleas were properly and voluntarily recorded; the date error in the second charge caused no prejudice and was cured under section 422 CPC; each offence involved different victims and separate transactions so sentences for each count were not concurrent; imposed the statutory minimum of one year imprisonment per count to run consecutively (total three years) and one stroke of whipping per count to run consecutively based on seriousness, modus operandi, deterrence and public interest.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on three counts under section 420 Penal Code and sentenced.

Orders

  • First charge (MC-83-374-06/2025): One year imprisonment from date of conviction and one stroke of whipping (whipping to run consecutively).
  • Second charge (MC-83-375-06/2025): One year imprisonment to commence after completion of sentence in MC-83-374-06/2025 and one stroke of whipping (whipping to run consecutively).