Tuan Mohd Badrulhafis Bin Tuan Mohd Zain (DJ-87-41-04/2024)

These are my grounds for my decision for this case. The summon meted against the OKS as follows:- Bahawa kamu pada 11/03/2024 lebih kurang jam 0830 hrs jalan masuk Pengkalan Haram Tok Rusa, Meranti, Pasir Mas, Kelantan. Didapati telah memindahkan 86 ekor kambing hidup menggunakan sebuah motolori no. pendaftaran PHT 9730 (warna: emas, jenis: Isuzu) tanpa Kebenaran Bertulis dan Sijil Kesihatan Veterinar daripada Pengarah Perkhidmatan Veterinar Negeri Kelantan atau manamana pihak berkuasa veterinar yang diberi kuasa olehnya. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Perenggan (a) Perintah Menteri Besar bagi Kawalan Penyakit Kuku dan Mulut bagi Negeri Kelantan (Kn.P.U.16) yang mana diwartakan di bawah Subseksyen 36 (1) Akta Binatang

Jika disabitkan dengan kesalahan kamu boleh di hukum denda tidak melebihi RM15,000.00 di bawah Subseksyen 36 (7) Akta yang sama. Hukuman: Jika disabitkan dengan kesalahan boleh didenda tidak melebihi lima belas ribu ringgit (RM15,000.00)

The Court is satisfied upon summon meted against him. Upon reading the summon which the Court also made him understand the nature of the summon, the OKS pleaded guilty at first instance and it were unreserved and unequivocal. The consequences of the plea also been meted out to him and maintained plea of guilt. Having satisfied with this matter, this Court find that the OKS guilty of the charge and sentenced the OKS with fine amounting RM 12,000 in default 4 months of imprisonment. Plus, other orders as below.

On 20.03.2024, the Prosecution applied to the court under section 68(3) Animals Act 1953, for disposal of animal forfeited by Jabatan Veterinar as per Meranti Police Report 421/24 by way of sale. This Court allowed the application. The 86 animals must be disposed by way of sale and the proceeds channel into trust account until final proceeding charge against the Accused disposed.

Presently, in this case, the OKS was charge under section Section 36(1) Animals Act 1953.The Learned Prosecuting Officer had tabled with list of documents which were then tendered as exhibit to this Court [covered in the notes of proceeding]. The OKS was represented by counsel of his own choice. The counsel also requested that the vehicle used in commission of the offence be returned back to its owner. The plea of guilt saved cost on judicial time and that he had remorse on his behavior and offence, thus he pleaded to be given discount on these factors.

The Learned Prosecuting Officer in his aggravating points mentioned that the OKS must be given with commensurate sentence as the life stock involve was 86 animals. Unchecked, it will impose health risk to public at large. Plus, this is the third offence committed by the Accused. The PO’ also gave cases that was faced by Accused before this court.

Under principle of sentencing, it is considered after considering on other facts such as time, place, the nature of the case and rampancy of such crime. This court consider from the facts of the case to reach a just sentence. ( Raja Izzudin Shah v PP (1979) 1 MLJ 270).Furthermore, this Court noted that in passing a sentencing a light sentence can be rejected in light of public interest. And this court also noted that plea of guilt does also not opportune the OKS to a light sentence. (Bachik Bin Abdul Rahman v PP (2004) 2

Having read the sentence provided by our Legislative body, this Court satisfied itself that this Court do have ample discretion to choose which is more appropriate. See Abdul Karim v. Regina [1954] 1 LNS 3; [1954] 1 MLJ 86. Before this Court decide the sentence to give upon to the Accused, I weighted the mitigating as well as aggravating factors cited by both learned parties. This Court considers that in departmental cases, OKS must be reminded that they should not repeat the offence.

Plus, having due regards to rampancy of such crime in Malaysia, where unchecked life stocks will impose greater harm to public health at large, a greater amount of fine must be given to ensure that OKS does not repeat it again. However, OKS in this case repeated the same offence again, which shows no sense of remorseful on his part. Plus, his action does not show that he cares the health of his consumers whom may consume the meat afterwards. Thus, public interest on this part is best serve where enhance amount of fine is given as OKS in this case repeat the same offence again.

Having due regards on the facts and circumstances herein above, this Court find that the OKS guilty of the charge and order him to pay amount of fine of RM 12,000 in default 4 months imprisonment. This Court also orders that the vehicle involve in this case be returned to its owner, plus the sum of money out of order of sale forfeited and payable to Government of Malaysia . It is appropriate, proper and just. Thus it should be maintained. DATED 3 August 2024 ……………………………………….. MOHD IZDHAM NAIM BIN CHE ANI Magistrate Magistrate’s Court Pasir Mas Kelantan Darul Naim Parties:- Prosecuting Officer, Jabatan Veterinar Negeri Kelantan Darul Naim: Nor Azizan bin Ismail The Accused: Muhammad Zaem Bin Ab Aziz Decision: 29 May 2024 CRIMINAL LAW-Principle of Sentencing-Departmental Cases-Animals Act 1953-Jabatan Veterinar Malaysia Negeri Kelantan Darul Naim-Plea of Guilt-Repeated Offender-Proceed of Sale out of Order for Sale-Sentencing by enhance amount of fine-Public Interest-Harmful to Public Health at Large