Mohd Munawar Bin Mohd Azizan v Public Prosecutor

Court of Appeal · · Criminal Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Mohd Munawar Bin Mohd Azizan v Public Prosecutor
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date21 October 2024
Date Uploaded23 September 2025
Legal TopicsCriminal Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s): Mohd Munawar Mohd Azizan

Respondent(s):

  • Pendakwa Raya
  • [Pendakwa Raya]
Bench
  • YA Dato' Ahmad Zaidi Bin Ibrahim
  • YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
  • YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab
Facts & Background
  • The appellant was convicted by the High Court for trafficking 325.7 grams of cannabis under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952).
  • The High Court imposed the mandatory death sentence, based on the prevailing interpretation of section 39B(2A) DDA 1952 at the time, which required the fulfilment of paragraph (d) (assisting an enforcement agency) for a lesser sentence.
  • The appellant appealed against the sentence, following the enactment of the Abolition of the Mandatory Death Sentence Act 2022 (Act 846), which removed the mandatory nature of the death penalty for such offences.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the Court of Appeal, in light of the Abolition of the Mandatory Death Sentence Act 2022, should exercise its new discretion to commute the death sentence imposed by the High Court.
  • Whether the Court is bound by the respondent's non-objection to the commutation of the death sentence, or if it must independently determine the appropriate sentence.
  • What principles and factors should guide the Court's exercise of discretion in imposing a sentence for drug trafficking under the amended section 39B(2) DDA 1952.
Decision
  • The Court allowed the appeal against sentence, setting aside the death penalty and substituting it with thirty (30) years imprisonment, effective from the date of arrest, and twelve (12) strokes of whipping.
  • The Court affirmed that it is not bound by the parties' agreement on sentencing, and must independently determine a just and appropriate sentence based on the facts and law.
  • The Court held that the amended law reserves the death sentence for the most serious and exceptional trafficking offences, and that the present case involving a "soft drug" (cannabis) and a comparatively small amount, with the appellant being a first-time offender, did not warrant capital punishment.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!