NIK MOHD AZERIE BIN NIK OMAR

NIK MOHD AZERIE BIN NIK OMAR

The court held that Section 39C(2) ADB 1952 applied and the sentence imposed (7 years imprisonment from 30/01/2025, 3 strokes, 2 years AADK supervision) is the minimum lawful sentence and appropriate on the facts; the one‑transaction rule does not apply and concurrency with the prior sentence is not warranted because the offence was committed while the accused was on parole; the court left the final determination of the appellant's appeal to the High Court.

Citation
DI-62D-57-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused/appellant: Nik Mohd Azerie bin Nik Omar
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 April 2025
Case Number
DI-62D-57-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Sentencing (session Court Reasons); Appeal to High Court Pending
Outcome
Sentence upheld by Sessions Court: 7 years imprisonment from 30/01/2025, 3 strokes, AADK supervision for 2 years; matter referred/left to High Court for appeal determination.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentence, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Parole Violation, One Transaction Rule, Totality Principle
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Sentencing Law Mandatory Minimum Sentence Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences Parole Violation One Transaction Rule Totality Principle

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Nik Mohd Azerie bin Nik Omar

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Sentencing (session Court Reasons); Appeal to High Court Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 39C(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applies and its mandatory minimum sentence
  2. 2 Whether the sentence should run concurrently with the prior sentence or consecutively
  3. 3 Whether the one‑transaction rule applies

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Section 39C(2) ADB 1952 applied and the sentence imposed (7 years imprisonment from 30/01/2025, 3 strokes, 2 years AADK supervision) is the minimum lawful sentence and appropriate on the facts; the one‑transaction rule does not apply and concurrency with the prior sentence is not warranted because the offence was committed while the accused was on parole; the court left the final determination of the appellant's appeal to the High Court.

Court Disposition

Sentence upheld by Sessions Court: 7 years imprisonment from 30/01/2025, 3 strokes, AADK supervision for 2 years; matter referred/left to High Court for appeal determination.

Orders

  • Imprisonment for 7 years to run from 30/01/2025
  • Corporal punishment of 3 strokes