Appellate court can substitute inadequate sentences if original judgments do not appropriately reflect public interest and sentencing trends.

[1] This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against sentence imposed by the High COURT on the accused person, Mohd Faiz bin Salleh ("the Respondent").

[2] The Respondent was initially charged for 3 dangerous drugs offences involving Cannabis namely:

1) Section 39B (1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA ")

2) Section 6 of DDA punishable under the same section

3) Section 6 of DDA punishable under the same section

[3] Subsequently, the prosecution tendered an alternative charge to the 1st charge ie from trafficking to one of possession under s 6 of the DDA punishable under Section 39A(2) of . The weight of the impugned drugs for the 1st charge was 299.45 gram of Cannabis.

[4] The Respondent had then pleaded guilty to the alternative charge to the 1st offence, as well as to the other 2 charges. He was then convicted on his own voluntary plea of guilty on all the said 3 charges.

[5] After hearing submissions on sentence from both parties, the learned Judge had sentenced him to 8 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of rotan for the alternative 1st charge, whilst for the other 2 charges, a sentence of 1 year of imprisonment for each charge was imposed. All the imprisonment sentences were ordered to take effect from the date of his arrest on 24 June 2014, and further, it was ordered that they were to run concurrently.

[6] Dissatisfied with the sentence imposed on the Respondent for the alternative charge, the Public Prosecutor had duly filed this appeal.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[7] The facts of the case were rather straight-forward. On 24 June 2014, about 12.30 pm, one Insp. Noorefeendy bin Mokhtarudin together with his team of police personnel from Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik, Ibu Pejabat Kontinjen Polis Melaka in "Ops Tapis" arrested the Respondent, who was at that time in the midst of refuelling his red Honda car bearing registration number WLG 554, at the Petron Cheng Petrol Station.

[8] A body search was conducted on the Respondent. As a result of the search, the police found 1 plastic packet containing slabs of dried leaves suspected to be cannabis in the Respondent's small front pocket of his blue jeans that he was then wearing.

[9] The search was later extended to the Respondent's car where the police team found 1 blue black sling bag written "Chelsea Football Club" on the driver side floor mat. Upon opening the bag, Insp. Noorefeendy found a "Peter Stuyvesant" cigarette box containing 4 transparent plastic packet which wrapping slabs of dried leaves suspected to be cannabis. Insp. Noorefeendy also found the Respondent's identity card in the blue black bag.

[10] The police team later went to the Respondent's house at No 21, Jalan Cheng Perdana 1/34, Taman Desa Cheng Perdana 1, Cheng, Melaka. In the master bedroom, the police team found one black sling bag under the bed. Upon opening the bag, Insp. Noorefeendy found 2 slabs of dried leaves wrapped by transparent plastic and 6 packet transparent plastic containing dried leaves suspected to be cannabis.

[11] All the impugned drugs were later sent to the chemistry department. Based on the chemist report (Exhibit P21), it was certified that the impugned drugs found were cannabis weighing of 299.45 gram, 16.17 gram, and 1.49 gram which are the basis for all the 3 charges framed against the Respondent respectively.

Finding Of Learned High COURT Judge

[12] Having convicted the Respondent, we noted that in passing the sentences, the learne