Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Forfeiture of vehicle

  • 27 Oct 2025

    Isma Blue Enterprise

    Citation
    TE-87-88-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    TE-87-88-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution proved all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt by admissible weighbridge evidence and consistent witness testimony; the offence is strict liability so absence of mens rea or reliance on forestry pass does not excuse breach; consequently defendant convicted and vehicle forfeiture under s80(4) is mandatory once the vehicle is shown to be the subject matter of the offence.

  • 2 Oct 2025

    Rajdip Enterprise

    Citation
    AA-87-2939-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AA-87-2939-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court held that the extreme overloading (46,240kg vs permitted 24,000kg; excess 22,240kg = 92.67%) constituted a serious breach warranting significant punishment and forfeiture; guilty plea and first‑offence status mitigate but do not outweigh public interest and mandatory forfeiture criteria under s80(4). The appeal was allowed in part: the fine was reduced to RM15,000 as proportionate, default imprisonment preserved at one month if unpaid, and the seized motolori was ordered forfeited to the Ketua Pengarah Pengangkutan Awam Darat.

  • 25 Sept 2025

    KANMA ROAD WORKS

    Citation
    AA-87-2847-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AA-87-2847-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Given the admitted facts establishing a severe overload (45,580kg vs permitted 25,000kg; excess 20,580kg = 82.32%), the court found the RM15,000 fine and forfeiture appropriate: the statutory range permits the fine, guilty plea and mitigation were weighed but outweighed by public safety and deterrence, and s80(4) mandates forfeiture where offence and vehicle nexus are proved.

  • 4 Sept 2025

    KEENEE ENTERPRISE

    Citation
    KA-87-1105-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    KA-87-1105-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    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.

  • 15 Jul 2025

    PCHH CONSTRUCTION

    Citation
    WA-87-2224-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    WA-87-2224-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court accepted the unqualified guilty plea, gave mitigation credit for early plea but placed greater weight on public interest and deterrence given the 85% overload and safety risk; imposed RM6,000 fine or 6 months imprisonment and ordered forfeiture of vehicle VHR 1403 (T/A 9743) to Ketua Pengarah JPJ under s.80(4) APAD 2010 because statutory conditions for forfeiture were satisfied.

  • 2 Jul 2025

    SRI THEVEN TRAVEL & TOURS SDN BHD

    Citation
    WA-87-455-02/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    WA-87-455-02/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Accused was properly convicted under s22(1)(b)(i) read with s22(3) based on the admitted facts; early plea justified some mitigation of fine, but public safety and deterrence required a substantive penalty; statutory conditions for forfeiture under s80(4) were met, making forfeiture mandatory, therefore the sentence of RM5000 (or 5 months default) and forfeiture of vehicle BKP 7776 to Ketua Pengarah JPJ was upheld.

  • 11 Jun 2024

    KIAN BOON TRADING

    Citation
    CD-87-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CD-87-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Magistrate found the accused guilty under s57(1)(b)(vi) APAD 2010 for carrying excess load of 20,760 kg. After weighing public interest and mitigation (early guilty plea, first offence, valid vehicle documents, no accident or injuries), the court held that it was within judicial discretion under s80(3)-(4) APAD 2010 to release the vehicle rather than order forfeiture and imposed a fine of RM13,000 (13 months imprisonment if unpaid) as an appropriate sentence within statutory limits.

  • 11 Jun 2024

    YBJ TRANSPORT & TRADING SDN. BHD.

    Citation
    CD-87-9-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CD-87-9-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found the elements for the offence under section 57(1)(b)(vi) APAD 2010 proved (significant overloading) but exercised its statutory discretion under section 80(3)-(4) to release the vehicle rather than order forfeiture, imposing a fine of RM12,000 (12 months imprisonment if unpaid). The sentence and release were held to be within law, proportionate given the guilty plea, first offence, absence of accident or injury, and the need to balance public interest and mitigation.

  • 8 Feb 2024

    SENG HUP ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

    Citation
    BD-89-93-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BD-89-93-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court held the applicant failed to prove an offence under s57(3) because s57(3) is a penalty provision, not a separate criminalisation provision; ss80(1),(3),(4) can only operate where an offence listed in s80(1) is established and the four-pronged test satisfied. Because s57(1)(a) and (b)(vi) were not the criminalisation provisions specified in ss80(1),(3),(4) and the requisite proof was not met, the court lacked basis to order forfeiture and dismissed the application.

  • 23 Jan 2024

    K & K ENGINE LINK (M) SDN BHD

    Citation
    BD-89-248-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BD-89-248-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court refused the prosecution's request for a substantive adjournment because the prosecution had ample time since the case management directions of 8.11.2023 but failed to file required affidavits and written submissions and gave no timely notice; the sick certificate produced was dated after the failure to comply and did not excuse non‑compliance. Consequently the court allowed K&K Engine Link's chamber application in Kes 248 in part (perenggan 1 and 4) and dismissed Pengarah JPJ's chamber application in Kes 242 as redundant.