BETA MUTIARA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

BETA MUTIARA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

The court held the RM30,000 fine was within the wide statutory range and proportionate given the 84.42% overload and public safety risk, while the defendant's early guilty plea, cooperation and first‑offender status mitigated punishment; additionally the court interpreted s80 APAD 2010 so that forfeiture is not an absolute mandatory outcome once proportionality and mitigating circumstances are considered, therefore returning the seized lorry was lawful and just.

Citation
AA-87-2183-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Negeri Perak; Defendant / Orang Kena Saman: Beta Mutiara Construction Sdn Bhd
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 August 2025
Case Number
AA-87-2183-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Traffic (apad 2010) / Prosecution Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Convicted under s57(1)(b)(vi) APAD 2010; sentence upheld and vehicle returned
Legal Topics
Overloading, Sentencing, Vehicle Seizure and Forfeiture, Proportionality, Guilty Plea Mitigation
Source Language
Malay/English
Road Transport Law Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Overloading Sentencing Vehicle Seizure and Forfeiture Proportionality Guilty Plea Mitigation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Negeri Perak

Prosecutor

Beta Mutiara Construction Sdn Bhd

Defendant / Orang Kena Saman

Procedural Posture

Criminal Traffic (apad 2010) / Prosecution Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fine imposed (RM30,000) was appropriate and proportionate for the offence under s57(1)(b)(vi) APAD 2010
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in ordering the return of the seized lorry instead of ordering forfeiture under s80 APAD 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the RM30,000 fine was within the wide statutory range and proportionate given the 84.42% overload and public safety risk, while the defendant's early guilty plea, cooperation and first‑offender status mitigated punishment; additionally the court interpreted s80 APAD 2010 so that forfeiture is not an absolute mandatory outcome once proportionality and mitigating circumstances are considered, therefore returning the seized lorry was lawful and just.

Court Disposition

Convicted under s57(1)(b)(vi) APAD 2010; sentence upheld and vehicle returned

Orders

  • Fine of RM30,000 imposed under Seksyen 57(3) APAD 2010
  • Failure to pay fine results in default imprisonment of 14 days