PAUL RESOURCES

PAUL RESOURCES

Given the proved overload of 108.5% (64,620kg v permitted 31,000kg), the court held the offence was objectively serious; guilty plea and first‑offence status were mitigating but insufficient to outweigh public interest, deterrence and denunciation; the statutory range under s57(3) justified a RM50,000 fine and, having been satisfied of the offence and that the vehicle was the instrument of the offence, the mandatory forfeiture under s80(4) APAD 2010 was ordered.

Citation
AA-87-1762-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Negeri Perak; Accused: Paul Resources (Satpal Singh A/L Terlochan Singh)
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 August 2025
Case Number
AA-87-1762-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Traffic (apad 2010) / Sentencing Appeal Against Magistrate's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction, RM50,000 fine and vehicle forfeiture upheld
Legal Topics
Overloading, Sentencing, Vehicle Forfeiture, Statutory Interpretation, Public Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Transport/traffic Regulation Administrative Law Overloading Sentencing Vehicle Forfeiture Statutory Interpretation Public Interest

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Negeri Perak

Prosecutor

Paul Resources (Satpal Singh A/L Terlochan Singh)

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Traffic (apad 2010) / Sentencing Appeal Against Magistrate's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RM50,000 fine imposed was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether forfeiture of the seized lorry under s80(4) APAD 2010 was justified/mandatory
  3. 3 Interpretation and application of Sections 57 and 80 APAD 2010

Ratio Decidendi

Given the proved overload of 108.5% (64,620kg v permitted 31,000kg), the court held the offence was objectively serious; guilty plea and first‑offence status were mitigating but insufficient to outweigh public interest, deterrence and denunciation; the statutory range under s57(3) justified a RM50,000 fine and, having been satisfied of the offence and that the vehicle was the instrument of the offence, the mandatory forfeiture under s80(4) APAD 2010 was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction, RM50,000 fine and vehicle forfeiture upheld

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 57(1)(b)(vi) APAD 2010 and sentenced to a fine of RM50,000; in default of payment to suffer 1 month imprisonment
  • Forfeiture of seized lorry registration MDW5008 to Ketua Pengarah Pengangkutan Awam Darat (Director General of Land Public Transport)