In drug offences, the seriousness of possession amount and the offender's conduct are crucial for sentencing considerations.

[1] The respondent, Mohd Fazelan bin Md Khuzeh was first charged with an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the Act). The prosecution had then preferred an alternative charge under s 12(2) punishable under s 39A(2) of the same Act for possession of 960.01 grams of methamphetamine in front of house at Lot 2087, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kampung Lundang, in the district of Kota Bharu in the state of Kelantan. The respondent pleaded guilty to the alternative charge.

[2] The trial judge sentenced the appellant to 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and 10 strokes of whipping. The Public Prosecutor is dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, hence this appeal. We had allowed the appeal. We set aside the sentence of 8 years' imprisonment and substituted it with imprisonment for 15 years effective from the date of arrest. We affirmed the sentence of 10 strokes of whipping. We now give our reasons below.

Factual Background

[3] The facts of this case as presented by the prosecution (exh P3) and admitted by the respondent as correct are as follows. On 5 December 2013 at about 2.05 pm the complainant, Inspector Nor Badrul Hisham conducted a raid at a tyre shop. The respondent was seen running away and throwing a bunch of keys towards a pile of tyres. The respondent was arrested and the complainant recovered the keys that the respondent had thrown away.

[4] At about 10 pm the same day, the respondent led the complainant and his personnel to a black coloured Honda Jazz motorcar bearing the registration number WMK 9415 which was parked in front of a house at Lot 2087, Jalan Yahya Petra, Kampung Lundang, Kota Bharu. Investigations showed that this house was rented by the respondent and he was the sole occupant. The Honda Jazz car had been used by the respondent for a few months before his arrest.

[5] The respondent opened the said motorcar using the keys that were recovered by the complainant. The respondent opened the right rear passenger door and showed a cloth bag bearing the words 'CHANEL' which was on the floor. The complainant opened the bag and found that it contained packages wrapped in newspaper. Upon opening one of the packages, the complainant found small plastic packets containing pills suspected to be drugs. The complainant seized the exhibits. The drugs recovered were sent to the chemist for analysis. The chemist confirmed that the drugs contained methamphetamine with a net weight of 960.01 grams (exh P5).

[6]Section 39A(2) of the Act provides for the punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with whipping of not less than ten strokes. Despite acknowledging the weight of the drugs, the trial judge imposed the sentence of imprisonment of 8 years and 10 strokes of whipping. In his written judgment, His Lordship had stated that if the weight of the drugs is the only factor to be considered, then a sentence of 18 to 20 years' imprisonment would be appropriate.

[7] His Lordship however, disagreed with the prosecution that based on the weight of the drugs, the sentence of imprisonment ought not to be less than half of the maximum term specified because, according to His Lordship, the prosecution should not have offered the alternative charge. According to the trial judge, when the prosecution decided to offer the alternative charge, the prosecution had chosen the safer route to get a conviction, so the weight of the drugs is rendered immaterial. His Lordship opined that the prosecution must have considered that, had the respondent claimed trial to the alternative charge, it would have been difficult for the prosecution to prove custody and control over the motor vehicle and the prosecution would have to rely on s