Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Vehicle overloading

  • 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.

  • 25 Jun 2025

    PEDOMAN ABADI SDN BHD

    Citation
    BD-87-929-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BD-87-929-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Although the offence and the vehicle's nexus to the offence were established, the court held that forfeiture under s.80(3)-(4) APAD is discretionary and not automatic; applying the discretion the court found forfeiture disproportionate given prolonged two-year seizure (itself a severe penalty), first offence, absence of accidents or injury, valid documents, and significant economic and operational impact on the company. The court therefore imposed a fine of RM23,000 with 6 months imprisonment in default and declined to order forfeiture of the vehicle.

  • 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.

  • 11 Jun 2024

    GANDINGAN DUTA TRANSPORT

    Citation
    CD-87-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CD-87-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court convicted the defendant for breaching s57(1)(b)(vi) APAD 2010 and imposed a substantial fine (RM12,000) as an appropriate and lawful sentence reflecting public interest and deterrence; notwithstanding s80(4) permitting forfeiture, the court exercised its discretion under s80(3) to release the vehicle to the owner given mitigating factors (first offence, guilty plea, valid documentation) while ensuring punishment and public protection via a significant fine.

  • 28 Apr 2024

    [ ] BUKIT BULOH PREMIX SDN. BHD.

    Citation
    DA-87-329-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    DA-87-329-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Appeal dismissed: conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant following voluntary guilty plea are lawful and proportionate; forfeiture orders for three vehicles were lawfully made under s80(4) APAD 2010 because the court was satisfied those vehicles were "hal perkara", and the remaining four vehicles were properly released under s80(3).