PETALING JAYA: The High Court in Ipoh has ruled that the seizure of a semi-trailer lorry for an overloading offence would have a “crushing effect” on a transport company’s business, emphasising that such orders are not automatic under the law.
Justice Moses Susayan said the seizure of vehicles under Section 80 of the Land Public Transport Act 2010 (LPTA) is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously to avoid unjust or disproportionate outcomes.
“The court has the power to release the vehicle where such seizure would lead to an unjust or disproportionate result with a crushing effect,” he said in allowing an appeal by Tong Xhin Trading.
The magistrates’ court in Teluk Intan had allowed a seizure order for the company’s semi-trailer and imposed a RM35,000 fine.
The company pleaded guilty to an overloading offence after its semi-trailer was found to be carrying 86,800kg of scrap metal, exceeding the permitted limit of 51,000kg.
Susayan upheld the RM35,000 fine but ordered the vehicle’s return to the company.
In his judgment released yesterday, Susayan said Section 80(3) of the LPTA gives courts the choice of seizing a vehicle or releasing one that has been seized.
He said the use of the word “or” in the provision clearly confers discretion on the court and indicates that forfeiture is not mandatory.
While Section 80(4) uses the word “shall”, he said the provision must be read together with Section 80(3) and does not require forfeiture in every case.
Section 80(4) states that an order for the forfeiture of a vehicle under Section 80(3) shall be made if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that an offence has been committed and that the vehicle was the subject matter of the offence.
“Courts must interpret the provisions harmoniously and avoid an interpretation that renders Section 80(3) meaningless,” Susayan said.
The judge said he was guided by several authorities, including Sierra Solutions Sdn Bhd v Public Prosecutor, which recognised that courts retain the discretion to release a vehicle where seizure would be unjust or disproportionate.
He noted that Tong Xhin Trading was a first-time offender and that the RM35,000 fine already constituted a substantial punishment and deterrent.
“No accident, injury, or death resulted from the offence. The semi-trailer was an important commercial asset, and forfeiture would have a crushing effect on the company’s business operations,” he said.
Lawyers Keshvinder Singh and Teeban Kumar represented Tong Xhin Trading while deputy public prosecutor Geetha Jora Singh appeared for the prosecution.
