by making him afraid to commit a crime (intimidation) [22] Looking at his background, the respondent has a positive prospect to be reformed towards becoming a useful member of the society. As submitted by the learned counsel in mitigation, the respondent is 22 years old, a hairdresser by vocation, with minimal monthly wage, a first-time offender and has pleaded guilty before the trial commences, demonstrating the respondent's remorse for his wrongdoings. [23] Moreover, the respondent has acknowledged mistake of his own doing and consequently has embarked on a new path to better himself by applying for a more stable job to support himself and his family. In doing so, the respondent has applied to join the navy and as luck would have it, the respondent is due to report to duty at Ministry of Defense’s Headquarters a day after he pleaded guilty. In support of this argument, the learned counsel proffered a letter of offer from the Armed Forces, confirming his client’s present vocational predicament. [24] Evidently, the respondent through his learned counsel has argued vociferously on his behalf so that his client be given a second chance in life to make good on his promise to repent from his wrongdoing and reform by leading the straight and narrow path to better himself through working in a more stable job in the Armed Forces to support himself and his family. [25] Nonetheless, the appellant reply to the respondent’s argument is tepid and generic at best. No meaningful rebuttal is made in replying to the appellant’s vehement willingness to be imposed with a bond of good behaviour under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned deputy public prosecutor merely prayed for a deterrent punishment as a lesson to the respondent and the public at large from ever reoffend in the future without, properly and adequately addressing whether the respondent’s predicament fall squarely within preconditions specified under Section 294(1) of the Criminal Procedure Court with regards to the offender's character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition, or the trivial nature of the offence, or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed. [26] In contrast to the effort put up by the respondent in litigating his case, the learned deputy public prosecutor fails to show there is no value in the respondent’s willingness to be imposed with bond of good behaviour, no evidence is presented to convince this court that there is defect in the appellant’s character, whether it is true that the respondent has no prior criminal record, whether the appellant’s age acts as an inhibition to him from getting a bond of good behaviour, no mention is made as to the status of the appellant’s health or mental condition, no proper address is made as to whether the crime charged against the respondent is of trivial nature or not. In fact the learned deputy public prosecutor fails to highlight any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed. [27] In determining what sentence will serve the best interest of justice the case at hand, bearing in mind the appellant’s background and factual matrix of this case, this court is of the view that imposition of good behaviour bond is an adequate measure given the circumstances of this case. It serves to educate him on his social responsibility and the dangers of drugs use to the public, as well as promote self-discipline. This court believes that this form of sentence offers some sort of avenue to incapacitate, reform and intimidate the respondent from ever being tempted to reoffend in the same way given his new vocational predicament as a personnel in the navy. [28] By sentencing the respondent in such a way, this court views that as the respondent’s bond period persists, his new life as a naval personnel which entails a period of regimented lifestyle and discipline-building training would steer him away from ever committing any sort of crime, which in turn will forge him into becoming a responsible and disciplined individual who could give back to the society through his service in the Armed Forces. [29] The public interest dimension in this case will be served as this bond of good behaviour shall also operate as an ever constant reminder to the newly minted navy personnel that he should not put his second chance on leading a stable life at stake by not adhering to the term of his bond. After all, the risk of reoffending would be greater this time around as not only would he be opening up the pandora box of litigation against him in the criminal justice system as a civilian for his failure to live up to his responsibility within the bond period, but more than that he can also loose his hard-earned job as the consequnce of his failure to observe the strict and regimented lifestyle of discipline that is demanded from any personnel in the Armed Forces. [30] This court is ever mindful that in exercising its judicial duty to see that justice is done by sentencing the respondent according to the law, such sentence has to be one that is based on principles of justice and fairness and not one that will create misfortune towards others. In my mind, despite the respondent having committed a crime against the State as charged, no direct victim is involved in the case at hand but for the respondent himself. As such, it is not right for this court in its zest to exercise its function, to victimise the respondent’s family by imposing hefty punishment which is capable of hindering the respondent’s family from benefitting from high hope they have on him leading a stable life through the respondent’s enlistment in the Armed Forces. [31] To this end, imposition of bond of good behaviour under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Court will serve not only the best interest of the respondent but also his family in specific but also the society at large as the society prepares to welcome a disciplined, reformed and useful member to its fold. [32] As an additional safeguard to ensure compliance to the terms of such bond, said bond of good behaviour is secured by a guarantor with surety of RM 1500 for duration of 1 year, as a reminder to the respondent to make best of his end of this bond by adhering to said terms of bond so long as it persists, for fear that the sum of money used as security to said bond be forfeited for his noncompliance. This condition also serves as a reminder to the respondent’s guarantor to bear some form of responsibility in ensuring successful reformation of the respondent back to the society as a useful member. [33] Section 294(6)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Court stipulates that the provision does not apply if the offender is charged with a serious offence. What constitutes non-serious and serious offences are provided under section 52A and section 52B of the Penal Code. In the present case, section 294 CPC is applicable to the penal provision of section 15(1) DDA, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years and is considered as a " non-serious offence" (PP v. Kumaraseelan A/ L Raja Rathanam [2019] CLJU 1255; [2019] 1 LNS 1255). Therefore, the court has exercised its judicial discretion to decide an appropriate sentence within the ambits of the law upon considering aggravating and mitigating factor of the case. [34] The background, antecedent and character of the respondent can suggest whether leniency or a stern punishment is appropriate. The primary purpose of enforcing criminal law publicly is to deter potential offenders from committing similar crimes (Rex v. Kenneth John Ball 35 Cr App R 164). It is beneficial to all if the sentence passed has the effect of discouraging the respondent from reoffending and guide him towards leading an honest life. In such way, the public interest is best served. For this very reason, our legal system does not prescribe a fixed sentence for the specific crimes. Instead, it sets a maximum sentence, allowing the court to determine the appropriate punishment based in the unique circumstances of each case (Chan Sit Hong v. PP [1974] 1 MLRH 415; [1975] 1 MLJ 261 and Norzilan Yaacob v. PP [2021] MLRHU 1708). In the view of this court, the range of sentence as prescribed recognises that the offenders are also members of the public and the punishment should aim to guide them towards lawful behaviour. CONCLUSION [35] Based on the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that the decision reached by this court with respect to conviction and sentence against the respondent in the case at hand is appropriate, just, fair, reasonable and within ambit of the law. Prepared by, ………………………………… (RAIS IMRAN BIN HAMID) Magistrate Kota Bharu Magistrates Court Kelantan On behalf of the apellant: Deputy Public Prosecutor Nursyafiqah binti Mohamad (Kelantan State Legal Advisor’s Offce) On behalf of the respondent: Mohd Taufikrullah bin Rusli (Taufik & Co.)