Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Penalty vs criminalisation

  • 2 Sept 2025

    JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN 2. )

    Citation
    JK-89-3-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JK-89-3-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court held prosecution for purposes of s80(5) was instituted within one calendar month because written consent to prosecute was obtained on 8.4.2025 and summons/filing/take-cognisance occurred on 9.4.2025, therefore s80(5) was not breached; s57(1)/(2) grant power to impose licence conditions and breach of those conditions as provided in s57(3) constitutes an offence for purposes of s80(1) so seizure was lawful; the omission to excise irrelevant sections in the seizure notice was not fatal given the surrounding documentary evidence (weighing ticket, permit) and the applicant's awareness of bas…

  • 8 Feb 2024

    MSIM ENTERPRISE

    Citation
    BD-89-63-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BD-89-63-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The applications for forfeiture were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove an offence under section 57(3) of Act 715; section 57(3) is a penalty provision and does not itself create the criminalising conduct required by sections 80(1),(3) and (4); the statutory four‑pronged test in s80 was not satisfied as the offences charged were under s57(1)(a) and (b)(vi) which are not the criminalisation provisions referenced in s80, therefore forfeiture could not be ordered.