1. ) RAZ INTAN DEVELOPMENT SDN.BHD. 2. ) ZULAIHA BINTI MOHD AZAM

1. ) RAZ INTAN DEVELOPMENT SDN.BHD. 2. ) ZULAIHA BINTI MOHD AZAM

Prosecution proved both essential elements: the accused sold palm fruit in March, April and May 2020 and lacked a valid MPOB licence for that period. Regulation 5(1)(b) creates a strict liability offence so mens rea need not be proved. The court validly amended charges to rely on s68(1)(a) MPOB Act without prejudice. On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence a prima facie case existed and convictions were warranted; sentencing focused on deterrence and public interest leading to fines and default imprisonment terms as ordered.

Citation
AC-87-200-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Lembaga Minyak Kelapa Sawit (MPOB); Accused: Raz Intan Development Sdn. Bhd.; Accused: Zulaiha Binti Mohd Azam
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 May 2024
Case Number
AC-87-200-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment at End of Defence
Outcome
Both accused convicted on three amended charges each
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Licensing Offences, Prima Facie Test, Charge Amendment
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Regulatory Law Administrative Law Strict Liability Licensing Offences Prima Facie Test Charge Amendment

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

Parties

Lembaga Minyak Kelapa Sawit (MPOB)

Prosecutor

Raz Intan Development Sdn. Bhd.

Accused

Zulaiha Binti Mohd Azam

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment at End of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case to call accused to defence
  2. 2 Whether offences under Regulation 5(1)(b) are strict liability requiring no mens rea
  3. 3 Whether charges could be validly amended at end of prosecution to invoke s68(1)(a) MPOB Act

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved both essential elements: the accused sold palm fruit in March, April and May 2020 and lacked a valid MPOB licence for that period. Regulation 5(1)(b) creates a strict liability offence so mens rea need not be proved. The court validly amended charges to rely on s68(1)(a) MPOB Act without prejudice. On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence a prima facie case existed and convictions were warranted; sentencing focused on deterrence and public interest leading to fines and default imprisonment terms as ordered.

Court Disposition

Both accused convicted on three amended charges each

Orders

  • Raz Intan Development Sdn. Bhd. convicted and fined RM4,000.00 for Amended Charge 1 (March 2020)
  • Raz Intan Development Sdn. Bhd. convicted and fined RM4,000.00 for Amended Charge 2 (April 2020)