KEENEE ENTERPRISE

KEENEE ENTERPRISE

The accused pleaded guilty and the prosecution proved by weight tickets and permits that the vehicle carried 86,400 kg (80% over the permitted 48,000 kg); under s80(4) APAD once the court is satisfied the offence and that the vehicle was the subject-matter, forfeiture is mandatory; magistrate had jurisdiction and the appropriate sentence was a fine of RM6,000 with forfeiture of the vehicles BFN6237 and T/K3092.

Citation
KA-87-1105-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Keenee Enterprise
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 September 2025
Case Number
KA-87-1105-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (regulatory Offence Under Apad) / Magistrates' Court Conviction and Sentencing; Appeal Filed
Outcome
Accused convicted; fined and vehicle forfeited to Government; appeal against conviction and sentence filed by accused.
Legal Topics
Vehicle Overloading, Forfeiture of Vehicle, Sentencing and Mitigation, Jurisdiction of Magistrate
Source Language
Malay/English
Transport Law Criminal Law Administrative/regulatory Enforcement Vehicle Overloading Forfeiture of Vehicle Sentencing and Mitigation Jurisdiction of Magistrate

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Keenee Enterprise

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (regulatory Offence Under Apad) / Magistrates' Court Conviction and Sentencing; Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused (operator) committed an offence under s57(1)(b)(vi) APAD by carrying excess weight
  2. 2 Whether forfeiture of the vehicle is mandatory under s80(4) APAD once the court is satisfied the offence and subject-matter vehicle are proven
  3. 3 Whether prosecution was commenced within statutory time and magistrate had jurisdiction to order forfeiture

Ratio Decidendi

The accused pleaded guilty and the prosecution proved by weight tickets and permits that the vehicle carried 86,400 kg (80% over the permitted 48,000 kg); under s80(4) APAD once the court is satisfied the offence and that the vehicle was the subject-matter, forfeiture is mandatory; magistrate had jurisdiction and the appropriate sentence was a fine of RM6,000 with forfeiture of the vehicles BFN6237 and T/K3092.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted; fined and vehicle forfeited to Government; appeal against conviction and sentence filed by accused.

Orders

  • Fine of RM6,000 imposed on accused
  • Warrant of levy to be issued if fine is not paid