Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Overloading

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

CK TIMBER TRANSPORT SDN BHD

Citation

NA-87-3538-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NA-87-3538-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the operator committed a serious breach by carrying 61,900 kg excess (113,900 kg vs 52,000 kg allowed); public safety and deterrence require a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence; where the vehicle is the subject matter of an offence under the listed subsections, section 80(4) APAD 2010 mandates forfeiture. Accordingly the fine of RM25,000 and forfeiture to the Director General JPJ are lawful and appropriate despite the guilty plea and mitigation.
20 Nov 2025

SYN GHEE HENG ENTERPRISE

Citation

AH-87-626-10/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AH-87-626-10/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the defendant's guilty plea as valid, held that s305 Criminal Procedure Code bars appeal against conviction arising from a guilty plea, exercised sentencing discretion applying mitigation for plea but public interest required deterrent penalty and imposed RM30,000 fine; having found the offence proven and the vehicle RX8025 to be the subject matter of the offence, the court ordered mandatory forfeiture under s80(4) APAD.
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.
27 Aug 2025

TRANS CARRIER SDN BHD

Citation

BF-87-256-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BF-87-256-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court accepted the unqualified guilty plea, balanced mitigating factors (age, health, financial hardship, early plea) against public interest and severity of overloading, imposed a fine of RM50,000 and exercised s80(3) APAD 2010 to order return of the seized vehicle to its owner within 14 days rather than forfeiture.
25 Aug 2025

PAUL RESOURCES

Citation

AA-87-1762-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-87-1762-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Given the proved overload of 108.5% (64,620kg v permitted 31,000kg), the court held the offence was objectively serious; guilty plea and first‑offence status were mitigating but insufficient to outweigh public interest, deterrence and denunciation; the statutory range under s57(3) justified a RM50,000 fine and, having been satisfied of the offence and that the vehicle was the instrument of the offence, the mandatory forfeiture under s80(4) APAD 2010 was ordered.
14 Aug 2025

BETA MUTIARA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

AA-87-2183-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-87-2183-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held the RM30,000 fine was within the wide statutory range and proportionate given the 84.42% overload and public safety risk, while the defendant's early guilty plea, cooperation and first‑offender status mitigated punishment; additionally the court interpreted s80 APAD 2010 so that forfeiture is not an absolute mandatory outcome once proportionality and mitigating circumstances are considered, therefore returning the seized lorry was lawful and just.
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.
25 Jun 2025

DBD TEGUH ENTERPRISE

Citation

KA-87-762-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-87-762-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court convicted the defendant for permitting an overloaded vehicle in breach of s57(1)(b)(vi) read with s57(3) APAD 2010; having accepted the prosecution evidence and guilty plea, the court imposed a RM7,000 fine as a proportionate sentence and, because the offence and that the vehicle was the subject matter were proved, ordered mandatory forfeiture of vehicle DBH5304 to the Government under s80(4) APAD 2010.