SATHESH A/L KRISHNAN

MC-83-552-08/2025 Kand. 12 04/03/2026 09:44:01 IN THE MAGISTRATES ’ COURT AT ALOR G AJ AH IN THE STATE OF MELAK A CASE NO: MC-83-552-08/2025 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND S ATHESH A/L KRISHNAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 1 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BACKGROUNDS 1. This is my grounds of judgment for the appeal arising from my decision delivered on 12 February 2026, pertaining to the sentence passed for a plea of guilty under section 45(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (“RTA”). 2. In the Notice of Appeal filed, the accused stated that he was dissatisfied on part of the Magistrate’s decision, but did not specif y what part of said decision he addressed. 3. The current case was called up on 12 February 2026 and t he learned prosecution informed this court that it had accepted the representation letter submitted by the defence on behalf of the accused. The prosecution also explained to the court that an alternative charge under section 45 of RTA would be offered instead of the original offence under section 45A(1) of the same Act. The accused chose to plead guilty after being informed that his representation had been accepted. 4. The alternative charge (PP) proferred against the accused before this court was specified in the following: - “ Bah aw a k am u pa da 2 9 .1 .2 0 25 , p ada ja m le bih ku ra ng 2 3 00 h rs be rt e mp at di J al an Si mp ang Amp at, d a l am d ae r ah A lo r G aj ah, d a la m neg e ri Me l a ka t el ah me man du k end e ra an MD U 6 8 5 7 d al am k e ad aa n m ab uk dan d eng an it u ka mu t el ah m el a ku ka n k e s al ah an d i ba w ah s ek s ye n 4 5( 1 ) Akt a P en gan gk ut a n J al an 1 9 87 . Huk um an: 2 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Den da t id a k k ur an g R M1 , 0 00 da n ti da k l ebi h R M5 , 0 00 d an b ole h ju ga dip enj a r a s el am a t e mpoh t id ak le bih 2 tahun . L e sen a ka n dig antun g se l am a t em poh 2 t ah un d a ri ta r ik h sa bit a n. ” 5. This court drew heavily on the latest judgment in the case of Teh Geok Chin v Public Prosecutor [2025] MLJU 4833 by the Court of Appeal, where guidance was elaborated for trial courts to follow before recording a conviction based on a guilty plea. Th is court had verified the alternative charge (PP) was correctly framed before reading the said charge to the accused, and ensu red the accused that he has an adequate understanding the alternative charge as the plea needs to be unequivocal, unreserved and unqualified. Before this court, the alternative charge had been explained clearly by the cou rt interpreter in the Malay language that the accused understood including the essential elements of the offence charged. 6. Subsequently, this court had also ascertained that the accused fully understood the consequences of the plea of guilty that entailed on the nature and range of the punishment that may be imposed including it car ries a mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for not less than two years after conviction under section 45(2) of RTA. This court was satisfied that the the accused understood the nature and consequences of the plea and that the plea was made voluntarily and without qualificat ion. 3 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7. In the current case, the accused was represented by his learned counsel, Mr. Suresh who was present throughout the proceedings from beginning to end. The plea was straightforward especially when the accused did not, at any time, withdraw his guilty plea before sentence was passed by this court. In this context, t his court determined that it was safe to accept the plea and pr oceeded to record such plea in writing . Accordingly, this court convicted him on his plea of guilty (PP v Yiap Tai Juan & Ors [1957] MLJ 38 ; Heng Kim Khoon v PP [1971] 1 MLRH 355; Lee W eng Tuck & Anor v PP [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 75); Mohammad bin Hassan v PP [19 98] 5 MLJ 65; PP v Muhammad Shah Putera bin Dang W era [2024] MLJU 2165). 8. In line with the alternative charge (PP), the learned prosecution presented the facts as in the charge. This court was aware of section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code requi ring the court to include in its record the facts constituting the offence, any statement made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence. This court exercised its judicial mind with respect to this matter. The learned prosecution has the discretion to p resent the facts of the case in a way that makes sense in relation to whether the charge is proved or not. It is not up to the court who is practising adversarial system to determine how the prosecution should present its case. The Court is a neutral arbiter, a lis tener and an observer, so as to promote procedural fairness and justice. 4 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal As such, with due respect, whether the facts presented by the prosecution are as in charge or has been prepared in a written form is no issue in the current case (PP v Othman Katan [2021] MLRHU 1065, HC). 9. This principle is in line with a judgment in the case of Abuchi Ngwoke v Public Prosecutor [2016 ] MLJU 84 delivered by the Court of Appeal Panel led by Tun Tengku Maimun (as she then was) to not let a trial judge get embroiled in the controversy. In that case , the trial judge had desceded into the arena of fispute by exceeding the appropriate limits of judicial intervention in the examination and cross-examination of the accused and PW 4, a taxi dri ver about the element of knowledge regarding the impugned drugs in capsules swallowed by the accused . The accused’s defen ce was that the capsules contained precious stones. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge ’s questioning had clouded his judgment of the facts. 10. The clear implication is that , it establishes an important safeguard ensuring a judge should not cross over to become the prosecution's advocate for proving the case. That safeguard remains intact in the current case when the prosecution tendered several exhibits, including P1, the police report which contained the narrative facts. The accused was given an adequate period of time to scrutinize and comprehend the documentations as exhibits being proffered. The accused had admitted the exh ibits without disputes. Therefore, 5 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal this court duly noted the statement of facts relating to the exhibits admitted on the ground that the contents of the police report had been admitted by the accused. 11. According to P1, t he salient facts are as follows . On 29 January 2025 at approximately 11 :00 am, the complainant namely Mohamad Asyraf (Police No. G22509), in the company of other police officers, was performing a roadblock under “Ops Mabuk” during the “Ops Selamat Tahun Baru Cina 23.” A red Perodua Ativa bearing registration number MDU6857 approache d the roadblock from the direction of Simpang Ampat in a suspicious manner at about 12:05 am. The car was stopped and further inspection were made at the roadside. The accused driver was alleged to have driven under the influence of alcohol and the accused informed that he had taken a mild consumption of alcohol when questioned. The complainant and other officers subsequently arrested the accused and brought him to Hospital Alor Gajah for a blood specimen to be taken for blood alcohol concentration test . Then, the suspect was taken to the Alor Gajah Traffic Police Station to complete the investigation . W ith regard to the ethyl alcohol content of the bl ood sample of the accused, the prosecution had proven th at the accused was unfit to drive at the material time through the chemist report (P4) when he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 6 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal SUBMISSION OF LE ARNED COUNSEL OF THE ACCUSED 12. In mitigation, learned counsel for the accused , Mr. Suresh pleaded for leniency. The defence counsel submitted that the accused is a 42-year-old man who has two children who are still studying and he is also caring for his elderly mother. The learned counsel further informed the court that the accused earns only RM1,500 per month. The accused therefore requested that the court to impose the minimum fine. PROSECUTION’S REPLY 13. In reply, learned Deputy Public Prosecutor , Puan Nabihah urged the court to take into account the high alcohol c ontent found in the accused’s body and applied for the maximum fine to be imposed . THIS COURT’S DECISION 14. After considering oral submissions from both defence counsel and prosecution, this court has considered t he accused's plea of guilty. On the whole, the accused entered a plea at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, it spared the court’s time and expense of a full trial, including the need to call a number of witnesses. This is conducive to the accused’s position (Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v PP [1987] 1 MLRA 43; [1988] 1 MLJ 167; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 209). 7 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15. However, being a sentencing court, this court shall allow for the focus of the trial to be on the actual offence and not personal circumstances in connection with that offence (PP v Mohd Shaiful bin Mohd Jaafar [2019] 9 MLJ 786, HC) . In the current case, the accused has dependants particularly his children and elderly mother which are not relevant factors and do not diminish the seriousness of the offence. As mentioned earlier, the defence’s representation was accepted by the prosecution and the accused voluntarily proceeded to plead guilty before this court . In mitigating the offence, the defence was seeking the minimum amount of fine, while the prosecution requested the maximum amount of fine. 16. Section 45(1) of RTA expressly provides for a fine of not less than RM1,000 and not more than RM5,000, upon conviction of the accused. The accused should have foreseen the consequences of his act from the very beginning, rather than now using his family’s hardship as an excuse. Positively upon common s ense, knowingly the act of driving under the influence of alcohol is a very serious issue as there is very real risk of sever injury or fatal car c rashes by drink-driving. The individual who commit acts of this sort must be willing to face the natural and probable effects of his crime. W hile this court acts to balance justice with mercy given to the accused when deemed appropriate, the public interest concerns about the need to protect the public from t he dangers of drink- driving should be weighed. 8 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17. The pertinent part in the current case is that the accused, through his defence counsel, submitted a representation which was accepted by the prosecution. As a result, the prosecution offered an alternative charge and the accused pleaded guilty to the said alternative charge in lieu of the original charge under section 45A(1) of RTA which carries mandatory imprisonment of up to two years. There is a reminder for the accused himself that he had already been granted some leniency in his favour when his representation was accepted and the more serious charge was reduced. 18. In order to safeguard the public interest, this court is of the considered view that a fine with a maximum range of RM5,000 is appropriate. Th is court should make it clear that it condemns drink- driving and will not brush such be haviour under the carpet. Alcohol - involved driving substantially diminishes judgment, control and reaction speed of a person, further it poses real risks to other road users. Such conduct is not just irresponsible , but also a legal hazard that makes an issue in road traffic accidents in this nation’s risk-laden society. 19. There can be no excuse in today ’s context to choose driving after drinking. Malaysia’s e -hailing services are widely available, accessible and convenient. E-hailing service particu larly Grab is 9 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal accessible quickly at prac tically any time and place. Thus, a responsible person who has consumed alcohol has safe r alternatives and should use these e-hailing services or call up his family or friend to take him home . In the current case, the imposition of maximum fine is deemed fit and appropriate as a deterrence for anyone who choose drink-driving. The objective is simply to let it be known to the accused and community that those who opt to drink and drive with the presence of alcohol will not be tolerated by law, even including any accomplice who still lend the vehicle to one driving when knowing the person has been in a drunk state (W ang Ya, “The accomplice problem of drunk dangerous driving” [2022] 5(6) Academic Journal of Humani ties & Social Sciences 41-45). In gist, this sentence of maximum fine of RM5,000 in default of nine months’ imprisonment exists both punitive and prophylactic as it is meant to increase awareness and safeguard the safety of every road users including the accused himself. 20. As for driving license, in accordance with section 45(2) of RTA, a convicted person shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than two years from the date of the convictio n. As such, this court also ordered that the accused be disqualified from holding a Class “D” driving licence for two years from the date of convic tion. The disqualification order and the minimum duration of two years are mandatory in nature. The court interpreter, at the very beginning of the proceedings, had 10 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal read and explained to the accused both the charge and its punishment so that he understood the conseq uences of his plea, and this was communicated to him at the very early stages of the proceedings. 21. I would say further by way of obiter dictum , a minimum disqualification period of two years is quite a long term and that it can be difficult for a family to mana ge where there is effect on ability to earn a living with difficuilty to get to work , especially if the offender is the sole breadwinner. It will therefore be appropriate, subject to legislation, for the court to be given the discretion to reduce the period of disqualification if the offender successfully completes an approved drink drive rehabilitation programme. This programme may address alcohol use, how it impacts driving performance, attitudes towards drink driving, along with safer alternatives to driving after drinking. In furtherance, the court may consider reducing the period of disqualification of the driving license if the offender satisfies the course and is, upon being given a certificate by the Director -General or State Director of the Road Transport Department Malaysia that the offender no longer has a drink-related problem and is fit to drive. It is proposed, for future consideration, that the court be empowered to grant a reduction of the mandatory disqualification period from the current minimum of twenty four months to a minimum of nine months for eligible offenders convicted of drink -driving offences, subject to 11 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal strict conditions such as the successf ul completion of an approved rehabilitation programme . This would imply that such 24-month disqualification for the alleged offender does not need to be extended, but that his disqualification period may be shortened on account of his eligibility, subject to ongoing judicial discretion and compliance with the programme. CONCLUSION 22. Having heard the parties and in light the findings above, this court ordered that the accused be fined at amount of RM5,000 in default of nine months’ imprisonment and his driving license class “D” be disqualified for two years from t he date of conviction, as this court deems the order adequate and appropriate in the circumstances of the current case. Dated this 4 Mac 2026 SGD ----------------------------------- (TEOH SHU YEE) MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATES’ COURT AT ALOR GAJ AH 12 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PROSECUTION : DPP Puan Farah Nabihah, Melaka. THE ACCUSED : Represented by COUNSEL Mr. Suresh Tetuan Suresh Balakrishnan & Co., Tampin. 13 S/N KdSDQPDT5UixtYW8C0j65A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal