1. Dishonest possession of stolen property under Section 411, Penal Code — Plea of guilt — Appeal against sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 4740
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, KEMAMAN
PP lwn. MOHD SHAN RIL LIM
[KES JENAYAH NO: TB-83RS-115-12/2025]
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence following a guilty plea unless it is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Public interest and a history of recidivism outweigh personal mitigating factors in determining a proportionate and deterrent sentence.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 411 - Dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 172D, 172G, 173(b), and 305 - Sentencing principles - Appeal against sentence after plea of guilty - Sentence must be within the ambit of the punishable section and passed in accordance with established judicial principles (Para 16) - Where an accused pleads guilty, the appeal is limited to the extent or legality of the sentence (Paras 22-23).
(B) Scope of appellate interference - An appellate court will only interfere with a sentence if it is satisfied that the sentence was wrong in law, manifestly excessive, or inadequate, or if the trial judge erred in appreciating material facts or the sentence was wrong in principle (Paras 24-25).
(C) Sentencing factors and Public Interest - In exercising discretion, the court considers the gravity of the offense, previous records, family support, and the accused's age (Para 26) - Public interest in upholding the dignity of the law and deterring others outweighs personal mitigation (Paras 28-31) - While credit is generally given for a plea of guilty, it is not an automatic right to a reduced sentence, especially where public interest and recidivism are significant factors (Paras 33-36).
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with dishonestly retaining stolen jewelry. The accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The accused subsequently appealed the sentence, citing personal mitigating factors, including his age, employment, and the burden of supporting a wife and six children.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the sentence of three years' imprisonment was within the legal limit of five years and was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the accused was a repeat offender with multiple previous convictions for similar offenses under the Penal Code, indicating a lack of remorse and a need for formal rehabilitation in prison.
Issues: Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and whether the personal mitigating factors of the accused outweighed the public interest and the accused's history of recidivism.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the public interest in deterring repeat offenders and maintaining social order outweighs personal mitigation. Since the sentence was within the legal range and proportionate to the accused's status as a recidivist, it was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
Result: Sentence upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Accused sought sentence reduction based on personal circumstances and dependents — Prosecution sought proportionate sentence as deterrent citing previous convictions. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Court balanced personal mitigation against public interest and the accused's status as a repeat offender requiring formal rehabilitation. (Para 19 , 26 , 28 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Sentences for guilty pleas must be within legal limits and assessed against judicial principles, weighing public interest and recidivism against mitigating factors. (Para 16 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 34 , 35 )
5. Sentence of three years imprisonment upheld as reasonable and not manifestly excessive. (Para 27 , 40 )
6. What is the scope of an appeal when an accused pleads guilty?
An appeal against a conviction based on a plea of guilt is limited to the extent or legality of the sentence imposed. (Para 22 , 23 )
7. When will an appellate court interfere with a sentence imposed by a lower court?
An appellate court interferes if the sentence is wrong in law, based on a wrong factual basis, an error in appreciating material facts, wrong in principle, or manifestly excessive or inadequate. (Para 24 , 25 )
8. How does the court treat a plea of guilty during sentencing?
While a discount is normally given for pleading guilty to save public time and money, it is not an automatic right and the court may refuse it in exceptional cases. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
9. What factors are considered when determining a proportionate sentence?
Factors include the gravity of the offense, circumstances of commission, previous records, family support, age, health, and the overarching public interest. (Para 26 , 28 , 39 )
A. PENGENALAN
[1] Mohd Shan Ril bin Lim (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai 'OKT') telah dituduh dengan satu 1 pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 411 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen yang sama kerana kerana telah menyimpan harta curi iaitu seutas gelang tangan berbentuk hati berwarna kekuningan dan seutas gelang tangan jenama Cartier. OKT mengaku salah terhadap pertuduhan tersebut.
[2] Pada 18/12/2025, OKT telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan tersebut dan Mahkamah telah mensabitkan OKT atas kesalahan dan dihukum 3 tahun pemenjaraan bermula dari tarikh tangkap.
[3] OKT yang terkilan atas hukuman tersebut telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan bagi merayu ke atas hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah ini.
B. PERTUDUHAN
[4] Pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah seperti berikut:
PERTUDUHAN
Bahawa kamu pada 21/11/2025 jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam,semasa berada di rumah tidak bernombor Kampung Teladas Air Puteh 24050, di dalam daerah Kemaman, di dalam negeri Terengganu didapati kamu telah menyimpan harta curi iaitu seutas gelang tangan berbentuk hati berwarna kekuningan dan seutas gelang tangan jenama Cartier milik Nur Fatin Izzati binti Zulhainan bernombor kad pengenalan 971213-46-5250 dengan mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayainya adalah harta curi. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 411 Kanun Kesiksaan dan dihukum dibawah seksyen yang sama.
Hukuman Seksyen 411 Kanun Kesiksaan.
Barang siapa secara tidak jujur menerima atau menyimpan apa-apa harta curi, dengan mengetahui atau dengan sebab untuk mempercayainya sebagai harta curi, hendaklah dikukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh yang boleh sampai lima tahun, atau dengan denda atau dengan kedua-duanya.
C. PENGAKUAN SALAH
[5] Pada 18/12/2025, OKT telah mengaku salah terhadap pertuduhan tersebut selepas pertuduhan dibacakan dan diterangkan dalam bahasa Melayu. Hukuman yang diperuntukkan bagi kesalahan tersebut juga telah dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada OKT dan OKT masih mengekalkan pengakuan salahnya. OKT memahami sifat dan akibat pengakuannya dan telah mengaku salah tanpa syarat.
[6] Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa OKT telah dengan jelas memahami pertuduhan yang dipertuduhkan ke atasnya dan juga hukuman yang boleh dikenakan kepadanya atas pengakuan salah tersebut. Mahkamah juga telah memastikan yang OKT faham tentang sifat dan akibat dari pengakuan bersalah tersebut.
[7] Pihak pendakwaan seterusnya telah mengemukakan eksibit seperti berikut:
- Fakta kes dibacakan dan dan diakui benar oleh OKT: P1
- Chukai report 9099/2025: P2
- Ayer Puteh report 515/2025: P3
- 13 keping gambar tempat kejadian: P4A-M
- 8 keping gambar kereta: P5A-H
- 17 keping gambar brg kes P6A-Q
- 1 utas gelang tangan bentuk hati warna kekuningan: P7
- 1 utas gelang tangan cartier: P8 [Kesemua ekshibit diakui benar oleh OKT tanpa syarat]
[8] Fakta Kes (Eksibit P1) menyatakan:
8.1 Pada 21/11/2025 jam lebih kurang 04:00 hrs, semasa pengadu bernama Nur Fatin Izzati binti Zulhainan berada di rumah alamat 1399-6 Kampung Geliga Besar 24000 Terengganu semasa hendak pergi ke tandas, pengadu dapati beg-beg pengadu telah berselerak di hadapan tandas. Pengadu telah buat semakan dapati pintu hadapan dan tingkap bilik telah terbuka serta almari baju berselerak. Antara barang yang hilang adalah gelang emas, duit sebanyak RM50.00 bersama kad pengenalan dan kad bank. Seterusnya pengadu datang ke balai polis buat laporan untuk tindakan pihak polis.
8.2 Pada 21/11/2025 jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam, pegawai tangkapan iaitu Insp Arizal Fiveroses bin Ghazali telah mengetuai sepasukan anggota dari Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah, telah buat serbuan dan pemeriksaan di sebuah rumah tidak bernombor Kampung Teladas Ayer Puteh 34050, Kemaman, Terengganu.
8.3 Sampai di perkarangan rumah tersebut, pegawai tangkapan bersama anggota telah 1 buah kereta jenis Proton Satria warna biru no pendaftaran CAQ1252 dalam keadaan enjin dihidupkan. Pegawai tangkapan bersama anggota bertindak menghampiri kenderaan terse
