[Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] v KHAIRUL ANUAR BIN ABDULLAH (CB-83D-970-07/2025)

Pada 9 Oktober 2025, satu pertuduhan pindaan di bawah subseksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (“ADB”) yang boleh dihukum di bawah subseksyen 12(3) akta yang sama telah dibacakan kepada Tertuduh. Kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh adalah memiliki dadah berbahaya jenis heroin dan monoacetylmorphines dengan berat bersih 0.04 gram. Pertuduhan pindaan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: “BAHAWA KAMU PADA 07HB JULAI 2025 LEBIH KURANG 6.30 PETANG DI SEBUAH BILIK KEDUA SEBELAH KIRI RUMAH, NO 71, KAMPUNG TELUK IRA, DI DALAM DAERAH TEMERLOH, DI DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR, TELAH DIDAPATI DALAM MILIKAN KAMU DADAH BERBAHAYA JENIS HEROIN DAN MONOACETYLMORPHINES BERAT BERSIH 0.04 GRAM TANPA MEMPUNYAI KEBENARAN YANG SAH MENGIKUT UNDANG-UNDANG. OLEH YANG DEMIKIAN KAMU BERSAMA-SAMA TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 12(2) AKTA DADAH BERBAHAYA 1952 DAN BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 12(3) AKTA YANG SAMA”.

Pertuduhan telah dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada Tertuduh. Tertuduh memahami pertuduhan tersebut dan mengaku bersalah.

Mahkamah ini kemudiannya menerangkan kepada Tertuduh tentang sifat dan akibat pengakuannya. Hukuman yang boleh dijatuhkan terhadap Tertuduh di bawah subseksyen 12(3) DDA juga telah diterangkan kepada Tertuduh. Tertuduh memahami kesemua yang diterangkan oleh Mahkamah dan mengekalkan pengakuan bersalahnya.

Fakta kes (ditandakan sebagai Eksibit P1) telah dibacakan kepada Tertuduh. Tertuduh memahaminya dan mengakui fakta kes Tersebut. Ekshibit-ekshibit berikut kemudiannya dikemukakan dan masing-masing ditandakan: a. Laporan Polis (Temerloh 4727/25) – P2 b. Laporan Kimia bertarikh 29 September 2025 – P3 c. Gambar-gambar barang kes (diakui benar oleh Tertuduh) –

Berpuas hati dengan pengakuan salah Tertuduh, saya mensabitkan Tertuduh atas pertuduhan pindaan dan menjatuhkan hukuman denda seperti yang dimohon oleh Tertuduh.

Menariknya, pada 21 Oktober 2025, Tertuduh melalui Penguasa Penjara Bentong telah memfailkan notis rayuan terhadap hukuman denda yang telah diberikan oleh saya. Notis rayuan membutirkan Tertuduh memohon untuk satu hukuman pemenjaraan pula.

Tertuduh diwakili oleh peguambela yang dilantik oleh Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“peguambela YBGK”). Bagi rayuan mitigasi terhadap hukuman, peguambela YBGK menyatakan bahawa Tertuduh berumur 54 tahun, masih bujang dan bekerja kampung dengan anggaran pendapatan RM300 sebulan. Tertuduh juga mempunyai 3 orang tanggungan iaitu ibu bapa yang lanjut usia serta seorang anak saudara. Peguambela YBGK menghujahkan bahawa pengakuan salah Tertuduh telah menjimatkan masa dan kos pihak-pihak. Tertuduh juga berasa insaf dan berjanji tidak akan mengulangi kesalahan ini lagi di masa hadapan. Tertuduh akhirnya memohon hukuman denda yang minima.

Pihak pendakwaan pula memohon hukuman yang setimpal dengan kesalahan sebagai pengajaran kepada Tertuduh. Tiada rekod sabitan lampau Tertuduh dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. PERTIMBANGAN MAHKAMAH SEBELUM MENJATUHKAN

Peruntukan hukuman di bawah subseksyen 12(3) ADB adalah denda tidak melebihi RM100,000.00 atau pemenjaraan tidak melebihi 5 tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.

Subseksyen 173(b) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (“KTJ”) menyatakan bahawa setelah seseorang Tertuduh mengaku bersalah terhadap suatu pertuduhan dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan tersebut, Mahkamah hendaklah menjatuhkan hukuman mengikut undang-undang (“sentence according to law”). Subseksyen 173(b) KTJ dihasilkan semula seperti berikut: “173. Procedure in summary trials.

If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, whether as originally framed or as amended, the plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted on it and the Court shall pass sentence according to law”.

Maksud menjatuhkan hukuman mengikut undang-undang telah dijelaskan dalam kes PP v Jafa bin Daud [1981] 1 MLJ 315 yang meyatakan seperti yang berikut: “A “sentence according to law” means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles.”.

Sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman, Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kes Lim Guan Eng v. PP & Other Appeals [1998] 3 CLJ 769; [1998] 3 MLJ 14, yang mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “The principles governing sentencing have been stated on numerous occasions and we think no assistance is to be had by going through all the authorities on the subject. Suffice to say that a court should, when sentencing an accused, take into account all considerations relevant to the case, including the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the antecedents of the accused, the deterrent effect that punishment is to have, any factor that warrants special attention either in favour or against the accused and above all the public interest.”

Faktor-faktor yang seharusnya dipertimbangkan oleh mahkamah semasa menjatuhkan hukuman telah dirumuskan oleh kes Mahkamah Rayuan dalam Public Prosecutor v. Morah Chekwube Chukwudi [2017] 1 LNS 864; [2017] MLJU 958 yang menyatakan: “Jurisprudence relating to sentence [5] It is well established that there are a number of factors that courts take into consideration before sentencing. Some of them are as follows:

the gravity or severity of the facts constituting the offence;

the circumstances in which it was committed;

the rampancy of such offence in the area;

the offender’s previous record;

the offender’s contribution and support to his family members;

the offenders means;

the effect of conviction and sentence on his job opportunities;

the age and health of the accused;

whether it is his first offence;

whether the accused had cooperated with the police after the commission of the offence;

whether the accused had pleaded guilty;

status of the accused;

whether there was violence during the crime;

public interest, etc.”.

Faktor-faktor yang disenaraikan di atas telah diambil kira oleh Mahkamah ini sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman terutamanya hukuman mengikut peruntukan undang-undang, kepentingan awam, keseriusan kesalahan, hujahan mitigasi oleh peguambela YBGK, hujahan pemberatan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya dan latar belakang Tertuduh.

Selain itu, semasa prosiding di mahkamah, saya mengecam Tertuduh melalui nama dan wajahnya. Ini bukanlah kali pertama Tertuduh ini dibawa ke hadapan saya menghadapi pertuduhan yang melibatkan kesalahan penyalahgunaan dadah. Tertuduh pernah disabitkan dan dijatuhkan hukuman oleh saya atas kesalahan dan hukuman seperti berikut: Nombor kes Tarikh jatuh hukum Kesalahan Hukuman 10/2023 18 Januari 2024 15 (1) (a) ADB Denda RM2000 gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara + 2 tahun pengawasan AADK 07/2024 10 Oktober 2024 15 (1) (a) ADB Denda RM3000 gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara + 2 tahun pengawasan AADK 07/2024 10 Oktober 2024 12 (2) ADB Denda RM4500 gagal bayar 13 bulan penjara (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Jadual 1”)

Rekod terperinci dalam Jadual 1 telah diperoleh daripada buku kausa yang disimpan secara elektronik dalam sistem yang dinamakan Case Management System (“CMS”) selaras dengan arahan Ketua Pendaftar melalui surat bertarikh 7 November 2016 dengan no rujukan PKPMP.PKP.100-11/2/18. Mahkamah ini memberi pengiktirafan kehakiman mengenai rekod sabitan lampau Tertuduh seperti dalam Jadual 1.

Untuk memastikan bahawa rekod sabitan dan hukuman Tertuduh adalah bebas daripada apa-apa ketidaktepatan, saya telah membacakan rekod sabitan lampau ini kepada Tertuduh dan Tertuduh sendiri mengesahkan bahawa beliau pernah dijatuhkan hukuman oleh saya seperti dalam Jadual 1.

Berkenaan kesahan tindakan sua sponte saya, saya dibimbing oleh kes Mahkamah Tinggi Tan Shy Wen v Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 1849 yang mana Amirudin Abd Rahman PK menyatakan bahawa tiada sebarang ketidakpatuhan bagi pihak mahkamah untuk mengambil kira rekod sabitan lampau Tertuduh atas inisiatif sendiri. Beliau menyatakan: “[46] In hindsight, the learned Magistrate was well aware of the convictions that she had imposed against the Appellant. Even though the Magistrate had not gone in length, she stated during the proceedings that she had convicted the Appellant accumulatively five times previously in 2017 and 2019 for the same offence. This matter was never denied or refuted by the Appellant during the sentencing process before the Magistrate which portrays that the previous convictions were indeed accurate. The Appellant would have denied or refuted or even say that she couldn’t recall if what was said by the Magistrate was inaccurate or untrue. Furthermore, this Appellant during this Appeal had never contested the veracity of the five previous convictions as stated in the grounds of judgement of the Magistrate which the Magistrate had considered in sentencing. … [52] It is the view of this Court that when the Magistrate had considered the Appellant’s five previous convictions, she was merely performing her judicial functions in compliance with section 173(b) CPC in determining the appropriate sentence … [53] … In determining what amounts to a sentence according to law, the court deciding on the sentence must firstly bear in mind the provisions of the law. When a statute provides for a mandatory sentence then the Magistrate would not have a say or discretion and in contrast, when a statute allows for the discretion of the court to be applied, it must be exercised in considering both mitigating and aggravating factors for example previous convictions, public interest, seriousness, age and plea of guilt, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, that when the Magistrate had made the statement on the previous convictions and granted the Appellant an opportunity to verify the previous convictions, she was purely performing her judicial functions in determining a “sentence according to law” to be passed by herself on the Appellant. [56] … In this case, the Magistrate had performed her duty in recording the particulars of the previous conviction by making a statement and queried the Appellant when the Magistrate was aware that she herself had sentenced the Appellant for the same offences previously. The Magistrate was conscious that she had previously convicted the Appellant and what was the offence involved. [57] The Appellant in this case shouldn’t expect the Magistrate just to disregard the fact that the Magistrate herself had convicted the Appellant before even when the prosecution had failed to prove so. The Magistrate had on her own motion and effort, asked the Appellant to verify the fact that the she herself had convicted the Appellant multiple times previously for the same offence. To compel the Magistrate to neglect this fact would indeed hinder her from performing her judicial functions in meting out a “sentence according to law”. What the Magistrate had done was to perform her judicial functions as mandated by law and this Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate had applied her discretion to take judicial notice in this case. [58] In practice, Magistrate’s sitting in his or her circuit would come across frequently where a person who they themselves have previously convicted appears before them yet again and has pleaded guilty and subsequently convicted by them again. Habitual offenders who are convicted time and time again and dwell in a life of crime should not escape the force of the law just because the prosecution had not produced any records of previous convictions of these offenders. At the end of the day it is the court who is the “guardian of justice”. [59] A Magistrate whose duty is to administer justice conscientiously should not sit back and disregard the fact that an offender had previous convictions if this fact was indeed very well within the knowledge of the Magistrate. The law should also not hinder the Magistrate by being rigid and mandate that previous convictions can only be taken into account when it is proved by the prosecution. Such restriction is not within the spirit of the law to expect a Magistrate in such a situation just to disregard previous convictions made by the same Magistrate on the same Accused.” (penekanan ditambah)

Mengambil kira bahawa kesalahan ini bukanlah kesalahan kali pertama Tertuduh, yang mana Tertuduh telah pernah disabitkan di Mahkamah ini di hadapan saya sendiri, maka Tertuduh tidak wajar diberikan layanan seolah-olah ini adalah kesalahan pertama Tertuduh. Satu hukuman yang lebih berat adalah lebih memadai untuk Tertuduh mengambil kira bahawa beliau telah dijatuh hukum oleh saya sebanyak 3 kali untuk kesalahan yang melibatkan penyalahgunaan dadah.

Kes Mahkamah Rayuan Tia Ah Leng v. PP [2004] 4 CLJ 77 juga membincangkan isu berkenaan hukuman yang lebih sesuai untuk kesalahan berkaitan penyalahgunaan dadah. Mokhtar Sidin HMR menyatakan seperti berikut: - “The Government and the legislature have taken very serious views in the abuse of usage of dangerous drugs. … … 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.”.

Oleh itu, berdasarkan kes di atas, adalah wajar Mahkamah ini juga menjatuhkan hukuman bersifat pencegahan bagi memainkan peranan mencegah aktiviti-aktiviti penyalahgunaan dadah.

Mahkamah ini perlu menegaskan di sini bahawa Tertuduh sendiri melalui peguambela YBGK telah memohon agar satu hukuman denda diberikan. Dalam mempertimbangkan hukuman yang sesuai untuk Tertuduh, Mahkamah ini juga perlu menentukan sama ada hukuman denda sesuai dan wajar diberikan kepada Tertuduh.

Berkenaan isu ini, Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Leong Kok Huat v Public Prosecutor [1998] 6 MLJ 406 yang mana Abdul Kadir Musa H menjelaskan bahawa jika hukuman denda disenaraikan terlebih dahulu dalam bahagian hukuman dalam suatu peruntukan undang-undang, maka hukuman denda hendaklah dipertimbangkan terlebih dahulu. Beliau menyatakan: “… the sequence of the three limbs of the ‘penalty part’ is first, a fine, followed by ‘the imprisonment term’ and lastly ‘the whipping sentence’. By that order, I inferred that it must have been the intention of the legislature to punish the offender like the accused first, by an appropriate fine if the facts against his wrongful act so justified before considering the other alternative penalties.”.

Oleh itu, memandangkan Tertuduh telah memohon untuk satu hukuman denda, maka Mahkamah ini menganggap bahawa Tertuduh bersedia untuk membayar denda. Peruntukkan subseksyen 12(3) ADB juga mendahulukan hukuman denda sebelum hukuman pemenjaraan. Tiada alasan untuk Mahkamah ini tidak menjatuhkan hukuman denda terhadap Tertuduh. Namun begitu, rekod sabitan lampau Tertuduh juga haruslah diambil kira semasa menentukan jumlah denda yang sesuai.

Mengambil kira semua faktor di atas, Mahkamah ini telah menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM10,000 gagal bayar 19 bulan penjara. Perintah lanjut adalah untuk barang kes dikembalikan kepada pihak pendakwaan untuk tujuan pelupusan selepas tamat tempoh rayuan. Bertarikh 15hb Disember 2025 TAN CHIEW KING MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (1) TEMERLOH PAHANG Pihak-pihak: Pihak Pendakwaan: Siti Sarah Aqilah binti Lokman (Timbalan Pendakwa Raya) Peguambela YBGK bagi Siti Fatimah Binti Mohd Shahril Tertuduh: (Fatimah Shahril & Co.)