Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Section 80 apad 2010

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 30 Jan 2024

    PEDOMAN ABADI SDN BHD

    Citation
    BD-89-257-09/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BD-89-257-09/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The application under s80(3) was dismissed as premature because the vehicle is the subject‑matter of a pending prosecution under s57; the applicant failed to apply first for temporary return under s80(2) to JPJ and a court should not order release under s80(3) while related prosecution remains pending.

  • 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.

  • 22 Aug 2023

    [ ] CHEW XENG TRANSPORT SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-89-157-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BA-89-157-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court exercised its statutory discretion under section 80(3) APAD 2010 to release the seized vehicle JSE9818 because the owner had been convicted and paid the RM25,000 fine, the vehicle had valid permits and licences, there was no evidence of dangerous modification, and section 80(4) does not oust the court's discretionary power to refuse forfeiture; consequently the forfeiture application was dismissed.