Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Supervision order

Legal area

Court

12 Aug 2025

JARNAL SINGH A/L MEHAR SINGH

Citation

BA-62D-161-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62D-161-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court convicted the accused on proof of urine tests and prior conviction records, accepted the guilty plea but found the mitigating value outweighed by extensive prior convictions and public interest, applied Section 39C(1) (read with Section 38B) and, because whipping was precluded by age, imposed imprisonment of six years from 15-5-2025 plus two years supervision.
18 Apr 2025

NOOR AZAM BIN MAT SAAD

Citation

BA-62D-59-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62D-59-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the statutory minimum for s.39C(1)(B) DDA and the seriousness of drug offences, but having weighed mitigation and the public interest, the court imposed the minimum five-year term with whipping and supervision; because the DDA offence was a distinct transaction from the existing s.412 PC conviction, the new sentence was ordered to commence upon conclusion of the current sentence.
23 Dec 2024

MOHD YUNAN BIN MAT YUSOFF

Citation

DA-62D-292-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-62D-292-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The mandatory wording of s39C(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 requires imprisonment of not less than five years for the offence under s15(1)(a); given the appellant's repeated drug convictions and insufficient mitigation, the court must and did impose the statutory minimum five-year term and a two-year supervision order under s38B; the guilty plea did not justify reducing the sentence below the statutory minimum.
18 Apr 2024

NOR MD SAID BIN LASIM

Citation

NF-83D-111-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NF-83D-111-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Accused was properly convicted on his admitted facts and supporting exhibits under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; given his multiple prior convictions and need for public protection and deterrence, a custodial sentence of 20 months to run after his current sentence and two years' supervision was justified; guilty plea did not attract significant reduction due to public interest.
24 Jan 2024

NAGARAJAN A/L SINNIAH

Citation

BF-62D-16-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BF-62D-16-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the mandatory sentencing framework of s39C(1)(b) and the accused's two prior convictions under s15(1)(a), the court imposed a sentence within the statutory range — 6 years' imprisonment from date of arrest, 3 strokes and 3 years supervision — finding that the limited mitigation of a guilty plea was outweighed by prior convictions and public interest factors.
5 Jul 2022

SUHAINI BINTI MOHD

Citation

TF-83D-384-06/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TF-83D-384-06/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court exercised sentencing discretion by balancing mitigating factors (early guilty plea, remorse, financial hardship, family responsibilities, no prior record, age) against public interest and deterrence under the Dangerous Drugs Act and concluded that a custodial sentence of 7 months imprisonment effective from 19.6.2022 plus two years AADK supervision was proportionate and within statutory limits.
20 Jun 2022

NUR HALIIF AMIERUL BIN ROSLIM

Citation

JD-62D-87-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JD-62D-87-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the accused's repeated convictions for the same statutory offence and the public interest in deterrence, the statutory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment, one stroke of the cane and three years supervision is appropriate; the sentence must run from the date of conviction (20 June 2022) because the accused was not charged in this court prior to that date; the appeal to backdate or alter the sentence is dismissed.
9 May 2022

SHAMSUL KAMAL BIN MOHAMAD PAKRI

Citation

AG-83D-195-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AG-83D-195-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court accepted the guilty plea and mitigation but distinguished the consumption offence from related possession offences; having applied the one transaction rule and the totality principle on the facts, the court concluded concurrent sentences were not appropriate and imposed 5 months imprisonment for the s15(1)(a) offence to run consecutively after the sentences in AG-83D-193-05/2022 and AG-83D-194-05/2022, together with a two-year supervision order under the Drug Addict (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983.
14 Apr 2022

MADHEVAN A/L V SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

PA-62D-90-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PA-62D-90-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court applied the statutory mandatory minimum under s39C(1) and held that, although the guilty plea is a mitigating factor, it does not justify a sentence below the statutory minimum; therefore a five-year imprisonment term (the statutory minimum) was imposed effective from the date of arrest, a two-year supervision order under s15(1)(a)/s38B was imposed, whipping was not ordered due to the accused's age, and a bond under s294 CPC was refused as inappropriate absent special circumstances and because incarceration is necessary for rehabilitation.
3 Dec 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Timbalan Lau Kiang Chai

Citation

BH-83D-982-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BH-83D-982-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Given the admitted facts and pathology confirming controlled substances, the accused's unequivocal guilty plea, first offender status, personal mitigation and the public interest in deterrence, the court imposed a fine of RM1200 (in default one month imprisonment) and a two-year supervision order under s.38B DDA 1952 as a proportionate sentence consistent with local sentencing trend for s.15(1).