TML ENTERPRISE

TML ENTERPRISE

Where an operator is proved to have permitted a vehicle to carry load in breach of APAD s57(3), the magistrate properly convicts and may impose a fine appropriate to public interest and deterrence; upon proof of the offence the court is required to order forfeiture of the vehicle under s80(4); mitigation for guilty plea and first offence can reduce but not negate an appropriate punitive fine (here RM30,000).

Citation
AC-87-123-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: TML ENTERPRISE
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 June 2025
Case Number
AC-87-123-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (apad Overloading) / Magistrate Court Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Defendant convicted under APAD s57(1)(b)(vi)/57(3); fined RM30,000; vehicle DBY 4888 forfeited to Ketua Pengarah JPJ; fine ordered payable in three instalments which were paid.
Legal Topics
Overloading (vehicle Weight Limits), APAD Section 57, Vehicle Forfeiture Under Section 80(4), Sentencing and Fines, Installment Payment Under Criminal Procedure Code S283(1)(b)(ii)
Source Language
Malay/English
Transportation Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Road Safety Regulation Overloading (vehicle Weight Limits) APAD Section 57 Vehicle Forfeiture Under Section 80(4) Sentencing and Fines +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

TML ENTERPRISE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (apad Overloading) / Magistrate Court Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether operator is liable under APAD for permitting driver to carry excess load
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence and quantum of fine for 73.67% overload
  3. 3 Whether vehicle must be forfeited under s80(4) APAD once offence is proven

Ratio Decidendi

Where an operator is proved to have permitted a vehicle to carry load in breach of APAD s57(3), the magistrate properly convicts and may impose a fine appropriate to public interest and deterrence; upon proof of the offence the court is required to order forfeiture of the vehicle under s80(4); mitigation for guilty plea and first offence can reduce but not negate an appropriate punitive fine (here RM30,000).

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted under APAD s57(1)(b)(vi)/57(3); fined RM30,000; vehicle DBY 4888 forfeited to Ketua Pengarah JPJ; fine ordered payable in three instalments which were paid.

Orders

  • Fine of RM30,000 imposed
  • Motor lorry registration DBY 4888 forfeited to Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan under s80(4) APAD