[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHD ESA BIN HASHIM

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHD ESA BIN HASHIM

The court found the accused guilty of breaching the supervision order under s6(2)(f) and, balancing the rehabilitative object of the statute with mitigating factors (age, prior compliance record, ongoing custodial sentence, guilty plea), imposed a custodial sentence of 2 months imprisonment from date of conviction as a proportionate and rehabilitative sanction.

Citation
CB-83D-1455-11/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (Pendakwa Raya); Accused: Mohd Esa bin Hashim
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 November 2025
Case Number
CB-83D-1455-11/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Breach of Supervision Order Under Drug Addicts (treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 / Sentencing (prosecution Appeal Against Sentence)
Outcome
Accused convicted under Section 6(2)(f) read with Section 6(3) of the Drug Addicts (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983; sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment from date of conviction.
Legal Topics
Failure to Comply With Supervision Order, Section 6(2)(f), Section 6(3), Rehabilitation as Sentencing Objective
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Sentencing Law Failure to Comply With Supervision Order Section 6(2)(f) Section 6(3) Rehabilitation as Sentencing Objective

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (Pendakwa Raya)

Prosecutor

Mohd Esa bin Hashim

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Breach of Supervision Order Under Drug Addicts (treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 / Sentencing (prosecution Appeal Against Sentence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused breached a court-ordered supervision requirement under s6(2)(f) of the Drug Addicts (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed is appropriate having regard to statutory maximum and sentencing principles
  3. 3 Whether the accused's imprisonment under another statute excuses or mitigates failure to report

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the accused guilty of breaching the supervision order under s6(2)(f) and, balancing the rehabilitative object of the statute with mitigating factors (age, prior compliance record, ongoing custodial sentence, guilty plea), imposed a custodial sentence of 2 months imprisonment from date of conviction as a proportionate and rehabilitative sanction.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted under Section 6(2)(f) read with Section 6(3) of the Drug Addicts (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983; sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment from date of conviction.

Orders

  • Convicted under s6(2)(f) read with s6(3) of the Drug Addicts (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983.
  • Sentence: Two (2) months imprisonment from date of conviction.