PEDOMAN ABADI SDN BHD

PEDOMAN ABADI SDN BHD

Although the offence and the vehicle's nexus to the offence were established, the court held that forfeiture under s.80(3)-(4) APAD is discretionary and not automatic; applying the discretion the court found forfeiture disproportionate given prolonged two-year seizure (itself a severe penalty), first offence, absence of accidents or injury, valid documents, and significant economic and operational impact on the company. The court therefore imposed a fine of RM23,000 with 6 months imprisonment in default and declined to order forfeiture of the vehicle.

Citation
BD-87-929-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA (Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Negeri Selangor); Accused/licensee: PEDOMAN ABADI SDN BHD (716014-X)
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Case Number
BD-87-929-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (offence Under Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 Overload) / Sentencing and Decision on Application for Forfeiture (post Conviction)
Outcome
Accused convicted; sentenced to a fine of RM23,000.00 with 6 months imprisonment in default; no order for forfeiture of the lorry.
Legal Topics
Vehicle Overloading, Forfeiture/seizure of Property, Sentencing Principles, Judicial Discretion, Proportionality
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Transport/regulatory Law Administrative Law Judicial Review of Enforcement Discretion Vehicle Overloading Forfeiture/seizure of Property Sentencing Principles Judicial Discretion +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA (Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Negeri Selangor)

Prosecutor

PEDOMAN ABADI SDN BHD (716014-X)

Accused/licensee

Procedural Posture

Criminal (offence Under Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 Overload) / Sentencing and Decision on Application for Forfeiture (post Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a forfeiture order under s.80(3)-(4) APAD is mandatory upon conviction or subject to judicial discretion
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved that forfeiture was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances
  3. 3 Appropriate sentence in light of prolonged seizure and mitigating/aggravating factors

Ratio Decidendi

Although the offence and the vehicle's nexus to the offence were established, the court held that forfeiture under s.80(3)-(4) APAD is discretionary and not automatic; applying the discretion the court found forfeiture disproportionate given prolonged two-year seizure (itself a severe penalty), first offence, absence of accidents or injury, valid documents, and significant economic and operational impact on the company. The court therefore imposed a fine of RM23,000 with 6 months imprisonment in default and declined to order forfeiture of the vehicle.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted; sentenced to a fine of RM23,000.00 with 6 months imprisonment in default; no order for forfeiture of the lorry.

Orders

  • Denda RM23,000.00; jika gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara
  • Tiada perintah lucut hak ke atas motorlori bernombor pendaftaran BQD3998 / T/BF2415