Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2466
MAGISTRATE COURT ALOR GAJAH
PP – Appellant
Versus
CINNARAJ SREEDARAN – Respondent
[Case No: MC-83D-653-05/2023 & MC-83D-654-05/2023]
The court exercised discretion under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code to impose a good behaviour bond instead of mandatory imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration for first-time offenders.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39A(1) and 15(1) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 294 - Accused charged with possession and self-administration of Methamphetamine - Pleaded guilty, court ensured understanding of plea - Mitigation considered due to age, first offence, and proactive steps for rehabilitation - Good behaviour bond imposed as alternative to imprisonment. (Paras 3, 8, 10, 17)
(B) Sentencing - Court's discretion under s 294 CPC - Good behaviour bond applicable even with mandatory imprisonment - Public interest and deterrence considered in sentencing. (Paras 9, 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested for possessing and self-administering Methamphetamine, with a total weight of 8.69 grams. The plea of guilt was accepted after ensuring the accused understood the implications. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the plea, imposed a good behaviour bond for 3 years, and fines for the respective charges, considering the accused's character and potential for rehabilitation. (Paras 8, 17)
Issues: The court addressed the appropriateness of a good behaviour bond versus mandatory imprisonment for drug offences. (Paras 9, 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for the accused to reintegrate into society, thereby justifying the imposition of a good behaviour bond as a suitable alternative to incarceration. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: Good behaviour bond and fines imposed.
JUDGMENT
Backgrounds
[1] The accused was charged in the Magistrates' Court at Alor Gajah with offences specified in the following charges:
MA-83D-653-05/2023
Bahawa kamu pada 11 Mei 2023 jam lebih kurang 9.00 malam di Pondok Perhentian Bas Jalan Kemuning, 78000 Alor Gajah di dalam daerah Alor Gajah, di dalam negeri Melaka telah didapati ada dalam memilikan kamu dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine berat bersih 8.69 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39A(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952.
MA-83D-654-05/2023
Bahawa kamu pada 11 Mei 2023 jam lebih kurang 11.30 malam di Pejabat BSJND Alor Gajah, di dalam daerah Alor Gajah, di dalam Negeri Melaka, sebagai seorang yang tidak dikecualikan di bawah Bahagian III Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 atau sebarang peraturan yang dibuat di bawahnya, kamu didapati telah memberi kepada diri sendiri dadah berbahaya jenis 'Methamphetamine' yang disenaraikan di Bahagian III Jadual Pertama dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 15(1)(a) dan dibacakan bersama s 38B Akta yang sama.
[2] Briefly, the fact is as follows. On 11 May 2023 at approximately 2100 hours, a team of police officers from BSJND Alor Gajah led by the complainant conducted an operation called Ops Sarang, Bil 1/2023. During this operation, the complainant and the team detained an Indian male (the accused) at the bus stop shelter, Jalan Kemuning, 78000 Alor Gajah. During the arrest, the complainant found a grey/blue/brown backpack with the UMEEI brand (P12) from the accused. Upon inspecting the backpack, the complainant found a transparent plastic packet containing suspected drug Methamphetamine. The complainant seized the evidence, explained the offence to the accused and arrested him.
[3] The accused pleaded guilty before this Court and convicted him:
(a) This Court had ascertained that the accused understood the nature and consequences of his plea and intended to admit the offences alleged against him, without qualification, with the presence of his counsel, refer to s 173(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code ;
(b) This Court had taken great care in ensuring that the accused fully understood the nature of the charges to which he pleaded guilty and the fact that he is represented by his legal counsel. This Court stressed that the accused is not to be taken at his word at face value when he pleads guilty, therefore before accepting his plea, this Court devoted time to ensure that it is the accused himself who intended to plea, understood the true nature of the plea and its consequences and his admission to the charges was without qualification (Heng Kim Khoon v. PP; [1972] 1 MLJ 30; Lee Weng Tuck & Anor v. PP; [1989] 2 MLJ 143; [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 75); and
(c) After reviewing the facts of the case, this Court satisfied that the guilty plea and decided it was safe to accept the plea. Accordingly, this Court put in record that accepted the plea of the accused and convicted him (Public Prosecutor v. Yiap Tai Juan & Ors; [1957] 1 MLJ 38).
Submission Of Learned Counsel Of The Accused
[4] Learned counsel for the accused, Mr K A Ramu cited the authorities, amongst others, as follows for this Court 's perusal:
a) PP v. Sautre Bhaskaran Pillai [2023] 5 LNS 108;
b) PP v. Bahar Abu; [2007] 8 MLJ 219; [2007] 4 CLJ 604;
c) Raja Izzuddin Shah v. PP; [1979] 1 MLJ 270;
d) Winston Rajah v. PP; [1999] 1 CLJ 315;
e) PP v. Muhammad Fadzli Mohd Amin; [2020] 2 AMR 280;
f) Pendakwa Raya lwn. Mohd Ramzi Amin;
g) PP v. Abdul Rashid Rahmat; [2018] 2 CLJ 360;
h) Pendakwa Raya lwn. Kumaraseelan Raja Rathanam.
[5] Learned counsel submitted, by way of mitigation, that the accused was 24 years old, a first offender and pleaded guilty before the trial stage, demonstrating the accused's remorse for his actions. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused had acknowledged his mistake and taken initiatives to become a better person. He enrolled h
