JUDGMENT

Steve Ritikos JC:

The Appeal

[1] This is an appeal by the Prosecution/appellant against the sentence imposed by the learned Tawau Sessions Court Judge ("the Learned SCJ") on the 16 December 2024, wherein the respondent/accused was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of whipping with effect from the date of arrest, 1 May 2024.

[2] The Respondent was charged under s 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA") and punishable under s 39A(2) of the same Act.

[3] The Appellant being dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, appealed against inadequacy of sentence.

Brief Facts

[4] The brief facts of the case are as follows:

- Acting on information, the complainant D/SI Sabturani bin Maul of the Criminal Investigation Division Narcotics IPD Tawau led a team of police personnel to carry out an Ops Tapis/Serbuan at an unnumbered house at Kampung Inderasabah Tawau. Upon arrival at the said house, the complainant together with his team arrested 6 male persons including the respondent/accused who were behaving in a suspicious manner inside one of the rooms in the said house. After introducing himself as a police officer, the 6 male persons tried to run away but were apprehended after a scuffle. Caution under s 37B(1)(b) of the DDA 1952 was administered to all the 6 male persons.

- The Complainant with his team then searched the said room and found 1 blue bag on the floor in the presence of all the 6 male persons. Upon a search on the blue bag, Complainant found 1 black plastic containing 2 black packets and a search on the 2 black packets, Complainant found 2 transparent plastic packets containing 2 gold-coloured packets bearing the words 'Freeso-Dried Durien'.

- Inside the 2 gold-coloured packets, each contained 1 transparent plastic, containing crystalline substances suspected to be drugs.

- All 6 male persons were arrested and brought to the Tawau Police Station.

- The chemist report confirmed the crystalline substances as the drug Methamphetamine which is listed under the First Schedule of the DDA 1952 and weighing 716.6 grams.

- The accused was subsequently charged under s 12(2) of the DDA 1952 and punishable under s 39A(2) of the same Act.

Provisions Under Sections 12(2) And 39A(2) Of The DDA 1952.

[5] Section 12(2) DDA 1952 provides:

"(2) No person shall have in his possession, custody or control any dangerous drug to which this Part applies unless he is authorized to be in possession, custody or control of such drug or is deemed to be so authorized under this Act or the regulations made thereunder."

[6] Section 39A(2) DDA 1952 further provides:

"(2) Every person found guilty of an offence against this Act where the offence is not punishable with death and where the subject matter of the offence is:

...

shall, instead of being liable to the punishment provided for that offence under the section under which the person has been so found guilty, be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term which shall not be less than five years, and he shall also be punished with whipping of not less than ten strokes."

The Law On Appeals From The Lower Courts

[7] In PP v. Prabu Veeramuthu & Ors; [2010] 8 CLJ 257 the Court of Appeal stated:

"[11] In an appeal against sentence, an appellate Court would not disturb the sentence imposed unless the trial Court had erred in applying the correct principles of sentencing or had embarked on some unauthorized or extraneous exercise of discretion (see Ganesan Nachiappan & Ors v. PP; [2000] 3 MLJ 244; [2000] 3 CLJ 302; [2000] 3 AMR 2621; PP v. Loo Choon Fatt; [1976] 2 MLJ 256; Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. PP; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 and Yit Kean Hong v. PP; [2005] 4 CLJ 592; [2005] 6 AMR 637)".

[8] An appellate Court would be slow to interfere or disturb a sentence passed by a lower Court unless it is manifestly wrong in the sense of being illegal or unsuitable to the proved facts and circumstances. And the mere fact that another Court might pass a different sentence provides no reason for the appella