Abd Ghafar Bin Mohamed Ramli (BA-45A-50-05/2025)

The accused, Abd Ghafar Bin Mohamed Ramli, was initially charged with an offence of drug trafficking under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act"), punishable under section 39B(2) of the same Act. 16/03/2026 15:52:35 Kand. 37 S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA

The accused also faced a second charge for possession of dangerous drugs under section 6, punishable under section 39A(2) of the Act.

On 30.1.2026, during the mention date of the case, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor informed the Court that the Attorney General's Chamber had accepted the representation made by the defence regarding the drug trafficking charge.

Consequently, the prosecution then offered the accused a reduced charge of possession under section 6 of the Act, punishable under section 39A(2) of the same Act.

Following that, the accused was charged with two (2) offences under section 6, punishable under section 39A(2) of the Act.

The charges were read and explained to the accused by the Court Interpreter. The accused indicated that he understood the nature and consequences of the charges and pleaded guilty. The Court marked the charges as Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P6, which the Court reproduced below in its original text in the National Language as follows: Pertuduhan Pertama Bahawa kamu pada 25/07/2024 jam lebih kurang 6.50 petang di Dusun Bt 23 Jalan Hulu Yam Bharu Batu Caves 68100 Batu Caves Dalam Daerah Gombak Dalam Negeri Selangor telah S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA didapati memiliki dadah berbahaya disyaki dadah jenis Cannabis seberat 2926.9, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama. Hukuman: Penjara seumur hidup atau untuk suatu tempoh tidak kurang daripada 5 tahun dan sebat tidak kurang daripada 10 sebatan. Pertuduhan kedua Bahawa kamu pada 25/07/2024 jam lebih kurang 6.50 petang di dusun Bt 23 Jalan Hulu Yam Bharu Batu Caves 68100 Batu Caves Dalam Daerah Gombak Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati memiliki dadah berbahaya disyaki dadah jenis cannabis seberat 1887.4 gram, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta Yang sama. Hukuman: Penjara seumur hidup atau untuk suatu tempoh tidak kurang daripada 5 tahun dan sebat tidak kurang daripada 10 sebatan.

The accused admitted to the facts as well as the exhibits tendered by the prosecution in this case. The Court accordingly convicted the accused on both charges. S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA

Having heard the accused's mitigation and the submissions in aggravation by the prosecution, the Court sentenced the accused to fourteen (14) years imprisonment for each charge, to run concurrently, and ten (10) strokes of the rotan for each charge.

Aggrieved by the decision, the accused filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the sentence imposed by this Court.

These are therefore the grounds of judgment of this Court.

The Statement of Facts tendered by the prosecution was marked as Exhibit "P7". In summary, the facts are as follows: a) On 25.7.2025 at about 6.50 pm, the complainant, together with his team, conducted a raid at an orchard (dusun) located at Batu 23, Jalan Hulu Yam Bharu, Batu Caves, Selangor. During the raid, the Police team found the accused inside a hut located within the orchard. b) The complainant made a physical body search of the accused, but no incriminating items were found on the accused. c) However, during the course of the investigation at the scene, the accused led the complainant to the back of the S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA hut and pointed out a transparent plastic bag labelled "40PP", which was hidden behind the blinds at the hut. d) The bag contained 4 slabs of compressed dried leaves covered with banana leaves, suspected to be cannabis, with a gross weight of 2200 grams. e) Thereafter, the accused brought the complainant and his team to a banana tree located in front of the hut. In between the gaps of the banana tree, the accused pointed out a canvas bag labelled "99". The bag contained 3 slabs of compressed dried leaves covered in a transparent plastic, suspected to be cannabis, with a gross weight of 3100 grams. f) The accused was thereafter arrested and brought to IPD Gombak. The incriminating items, suspected to be cannabis, were sent to the Government Chemist Department, and the Chemist confirmed that the exhibits were cannabis, a dangerous drug under the Act. g) The investigation further revealed that only the accused had access to the place where the drugs were found. The accused himself had led the police to the locations where the drugs were hidden by the accused. h) Accordingly, the accused was found to have possession of the dangerous drugs as charged. S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA

The accused, in his mitigation as mentioned in the written submission filed by the defence, submitted that the accused is 48 years old, a widower, with 8 children and the youngest being 11 years old. He is the sole breadwinner for his family since the passing of his wife.

The defence submitted that the accused became involved in drugs following the death of his wife, and that the accused is remorseful for his actions. The defence urged the Court to consider the guilty plea made by the accused at the earliest possible opportunity, which had saved the Court's time and resources.

The counsel further submitted that on the trend of sentencing, the drugs in the instance case were cannabis, which, according to the counsel, was construed as "soft drugs" and relied on the case of PP v Romi Ali & Anor [2014] MLRHU 214 HC, which referred to Abdul Halim Ishak & Satu Lagi [2013] MLRAU 235; [2013] 9 CLJ 599 (CA). The trend of sentencing for cannabis should differs to other synthetic drugs like shabu/hard drugs.

Hence, the counsel submitted that based on the trend of sentencing and the weight of the drugs, the defence suggested that an appropriate sentence would be within the range of 10 to 11 years. S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA

The prosecution, on the other hand, emphasised the serious nature of drug offences and submitted that the public interest should outweigh the accused's personal interest.

The prosecution further submitted that drug offences continue to pose a serious threat to society, and therefore, the Court must impose deterrent sentences. Given the substantial weight of cannabis involved, the prosecution submitted that the appropriate sentence should fall between 14 and 18 years' imprisonment. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT ON THE

First and foremost, the Court emphasises that the accused pleaded guilty to both charges. The total weight of cannabis involved in the present case was 4814.3 grams.

There is a plethora of judicial propositions decided by the higher Court in this respect. The well-established principles of sentencing were propounded by the Court in R v Kenneth John Ball [1951] 35 Cr. The Court also referred to Rex v Grondkwoski [1946] All ER 560 and PP v Jafa Daud [1981] 1

Based on the authorities, the Court's paramount consideration when sentencing is the public interest and the seriousness of the offence under the Act. And the Court must also focus on the objects of the sentencing, which, amongst others, include S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA deterrence, rehabilitation, reformation or restoration, retribution and restitution.

Based on case laws, time and again, we can see that the Court has been playing its role dynamically to protect the public from such crimes by imposing stringent punishments for offences under the Act, hopeful that such sentences meet the objectives of sentencing.

The landmark decision on point which guided the Court is the case of Loh Hock Seng V PP [1980] 2 MLJ 13, where Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya) (His Majesty as he then was) had this to say at p 14: "Notwithstanding the several convictions for trafficking in drugs that have been secured, the rampancy of the this type of offence still continues unabated with sequential impetus to related offences under the Ordinance, and in view of the current and continuing upsurgence of indulgence in dangerous and deleterious drugs and offences relating to and connected therewith, we feel the time has now come for some more vigorous element of deterrence to be brought to bear upon those trafficking in drugs, both active and potential, who are no less than engineers of evil and pedlars of death, to the intent and extent that intending offenders should be made to desist and be deterred, that those one step ahead and in the course of promoting or participating in such heinous activity should realise the extremely grave consequences S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA they face, stop dead in their tracks, repent and resile, and that those who, notwithstanding still pertinaciously persist and have the misfortune of being apprehended, should know they are in for the punishment prescribed by law to fit the crime. As was said by Abdoolcader J, in Tan Boon Liat v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors trafficking in drugs strikes at the very core of public order, and he went on to add (at p 88): 'Trafficking in drugs is a crime which also affects public health and public safety and can indeed be the spawn or nidus of crimes that ultimately result in violence or at least have a shattering effect on public tranquility and society generally."

Following that, the Court of Appeal in Tia Ah Leng v PP [2004] 4 MLJ 249 reiterated the Court's concerns on the rampant rise of drug cases despite the trend of heavy sentencing imposed by the Court, and Mokhtar Sidin JCA delivering judgment of the Court followed the judicial propositions decided in Loh Hock Seng (supra) and said: [14] As can be seen from the above, the Government and the legislature have taken various steps to curb drug activities and we believe that the courts should also help to curb these activities by imposing stringent punishments provided by the law. In Loh Hock Seng & Anor v Public Prosecutor at p 14, Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya) stated: S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA There has been several convictions in the country for trafficking in drugs under section 39B of the Ordinance but the courts have invariably sought out a sense of compassion to exercise mercy and have imposed accordingly only the second alternative of a sentence of life imprisonment, and we understand that this is the first time in which the Public Prosecutor has appealed against the imposition of such a sentence, no doubt in respect of the 2nd appellant in view of the facts and circumstances surrounding and relating to his case. Sentencing in a criminal case must of course bear relation to the particular circumstances of the offender as well as the particular circumstances of the offence. The legislature has in its wisdom and in the implementation of its plenary powers in this respect enacted the imposition of the alternative penalties of death or imprisonment for life under section 39B of the Ordinance with the option and discretion in this regard to be no doubt judicially and judiciously exercised according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and we can see no reason whatsoever why the statutory enactment of the option for punishment by death cannot and should not be made functionally operative and exercised and applied proprio vigore if the circumstances and facts of the case so warrant, justify, require and perhaps even demand." S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA

Having been guided by the decisions of the higher courts on the trend of sentencing for cases of a similar nature and circumstances, the Court referred to amongst others, the Court of Appeal decision in Pendakwa Raya v Abdul Halim Ishak Dan Satu Lagi [2013] 7 MLRA 372, in which the Court of Appeal set aside the lenient sentence of imprisonment imposed by the High Court and sentenced the accused (Respondent) with 14 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of rotan for the offence of possession of cannabis under section 6 of the Act.

Unlike the decision in Abdul Halim Ishak (supra), the amount of cannabis involved in the instant case was relatively less. Notwithstanding that, the Court had sentenced the accused to 14 years of imprisonment to ensure that the Court conveyed the right message not only to the accused, but to other would-be offenders that an offence under the Act is serious. Drug offences are an ongoing national problem that the sentencing Court must play its role in combatting the offence by imposing deterrent sentences.

Bearing in mind that the case involved an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, this Court must apply the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Tia Ai Leng (supra), that the general rule that the Court may consider the guilty plea for certain credit or discount in imposing a sentence, does not apply to an offence committed under the Act and Mokhtar Sidin CJA had this to say in this respect - S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA "It is the general rule that when imposing a sentence, the Court should take into consideration the fact that an accused person who has pleaded guilty be given certain credit and discount. However, there are exceptions to this rule, ie offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The Government and the legislature have taken various steps to curb drug activities and the courts should also help to curb these activities by imposing stringent punishments provided by the law (see paras 9 and 14); Loh Hock Seng & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1980] 2 MLJ 13 followed."

Having considered the substantial weight of cannabis involved, the circumstances of the offence, the mitigating factors and the sentencing trend in comparable cases, this Court was of the view that a sentence of 14 years of imprisonment together with 10 strokes of the rotan for each charge was appropriate, proportionate, and consistent with established sentencing principles. See also section 288(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Court therefore ordered that the imprisonment sentences run concurrently, commencing from the date of arrest.

The above formed the basis of the Court's decision on the conviction and sentencing. S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA Dated: 16.3.2026. Sgd. (Y.A. DR HAZLINA BINTI HUSSAIN) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN Deputy Public Prosecutor: Tuan Mohd Firdaous bin Mohamed Idris Counsel for the Accused: Encik Arik Zakri bin Abdul Kadir (Lantikan Mahkamah) S/N ywhz4qOZoEyTqpQK6raemA