[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MEGAT IYLIA DHIYA ADHWA BIN MEGAT AL-HADID 2. ) DANIAL ISKANDAR

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MEGAT IYLIA DHIYA ADHWA BIN MEGAT AL-HADID 2. ) DANIAL ISKANDAR

The court exercised its discretion under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Attendance Order 1954, finding the statutory pre-requisites met and that a compulsory attendance order (6 months, 2 hours daily) was appropriate in lieu of imprisonment because the accuseds were youthful first offenders, remorseful, amenable to rehabilitation with family support, and the public interest favored community‑based rehabilitation over custody.

Citation
CF-83RS-41-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: MEGAT IYLIA DHIYA ADHWA BIN MEGAT AL-HADID; Accused: DANIAL ISKANDAR
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 February 2023
Case Number
CF-83RS-41-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Theft (section 380 Penal Code) / Sentencing / Grounds of Judgment (post‑conviction)
Outcome
Accuseds convicted on plea and sentenced to a Compulsory Attendance Order under Section 5(1) Compulsory Attendance Order 1954.
Legal Topics
Theft, Compulsory Attendance Order, Probation Report, Rehabilitation, First Offender Mitigation, Non Custodial Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Penal Code Compulsory Attendance Order 1954 Criminal Procedure Theft Compulsory Attendance Order Probation Report +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

MEGAT IYLIA DHIYA ADHWA BIN MEGAT AL-HADID

Accused

DANIAL ISKANDAR

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Theft (section 380 Penal Code) / Sentencing / Grounds of Judgment (post‑conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may lawfully impose a Compulsory Attendance Order under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Attendance Order 1954 for an offence charged under Section 380 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether statutory pre-requisites of Section 5(1) were satisfied (maximum imprisonment under three years exposure, character, physical capability, willingness to comply)
  3. 3 Whether a non-custodial sentence is appropriate given accuseds' youth, first‑offender status and prospects for rehabilitation

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Attendance Order 1954, finding the statutory pre-requisites met and that a compulsory attendance order (6 months, 2 hours daily) was appropriate in lieu of imprisonment because the accuseds were youthful first offenders, remorseful, amenable to rehabilitation with family support, and the public interest favored community‑based rehabilitation over custody.

Court Disposition

Accuseds convicted on plea and sentenced to a Compulsory Attendance Order under Section 5(1) Compulsory Attendance Order 1954.

Orders

  • Compulsory Attendance Order: attend daily at a specified Centre for compulsory work for a period of 6 months for 2 hours daily pursuant to Section 5(1) Compulsory Attendance Order 1954.
  • Record notes that there was no stay of execution and that both accused persons completed the Compulsory Attendance Order on 27 July 2023.