JUDGMENT

Muniandy Kannyappan JC:

[1] The accused has appealed against the sentence meted out by this court on him via the prison authority.

[2] Although the notice of appeal filed does not state basis for the appeal, but it is reckoned the sentence passed on him is manifestly excessive.

[3] At the outset it is emphasised, this court had only imposed the minimum term of imprisonment which falls within the prescribed parameters of punishment under s 39A(2) and 39A(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ( DDA ; Act 234).

[4] For the first offence which forms subject matter of the alternative charge offered by the prosecution to the accused under s 39A (2) DDA , in place of s 39B which attracts death penalty, he was sentenced to a period of eight years' imprisonment. The minimum period of imprisonment allowed under the law is five years'. As whipping is mandatory and minimum allowed by law is ten strokes, this court had imposed the same on accused.

[5] As for the second offence pertaining subject matter of the second charge against accused, under s 39A(1) DDA , the accused was sentenced to a period of two years' imprisonment and three strokes of whipping. It is the minimum sentence of imp