PENDAKWARAYA PN NURSULEHAN MOHD KAMARUDDIN AMINULLAH BIN HAMID

PENDAKWARAYA PN NURSULEHAN MOHD KAMARUDDIN AMINULLAH BIN HAMID

Court exercised its discretion under section 6(1) Act 357 to impose a fine in lieu of the statutory custodial range because the factual matrix showed the offence was less serious (no evidence of intent to use the parang, no violence, no other wrongful items), the accused was a first offender who pleaded guilty early, cooperated with police, suffered family and economic hardship, and public interest and rehabilitative aims were better served by a monetary sentence and restorative approach rather than immediate imprisonment.

Citation
JA-62-145-11/19 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Kamaruddin Aminullah bin Hamid
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 October 2021
Case Number
JA-62-145-11/19 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (offensive Weapons Act 357) / Post‑conviction Appeal on Sentence by Prosecutor
Outcome
Convicted; prosecution's appeal against the original sentence dismissed; sentence imposed as a fine with default imprisonment
Legal Topics
Possession of Offensive Weapon, Section 6(1) Act 357, Discretion to Impose Fine, Guilty Plea Credit, First Offender Mitigation, Public Interest, Section 294 Criminal Procedure Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Statutory Interpretation Possession of Offensive Weapon Section 6(1) Act 357 Discretion to Impose Fine Guilty Plea Credit First Offender Mitigation +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohd Kamaruddin Aminullah bin Hamid

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (offensive Weapons Act 357) / Post‑conviction Appeal on Sentence by Prosecutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court has discretion under section 6(1) Act 357 to impose a fine instead of imposing the statutory custodial term
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence balancing public interest and mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, lack of evidence of intent to use weapon)
  3. 3 Whether a bond under section 294 CPC is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Court exercised its discretion under section 6(1) Act 357 to impose a fine in lieu of the statutory custodial range because the factual matrix showed the offence was less serious (no evidence of intent to use the parang, no violence, no other wrongful items), the accused was a first offender who pleaded guilty early, cooperated with police, suffered family and economic hardship, and public interest and rehabilitative aims were better served by a monetary sentence and restorative approach rather than immediate imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Convicted; prosecution's appeal against the original sentence dismissed; sentence imposed as a fine with default imprisonment

Orders

  • Accused convicted under section 6(1) Akta 357
  • Fine of RM5,000.00 imposed