NG KIAN TEIK V. PP
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AZMI ARIFFIN JCA 
HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ JCA 
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: A-05A(H)-538-10-2025]
20 APRIL 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (7)

Abstract – In passing a sentence where the mandatory punishment of whipping is barred by the operation of s. 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the correct approach to be adopted by the courts is: (i) the trial court shall pass sentence of imprisonment on the offender as it would in any other cases of similar offence where there is no such bar; (ii) a decision to enhance the sentence of imprisonment in lieu of whipping must be based on the proper exercise of judicial discretion and not as a rule; (iii) a decision to enhance the term of an imprisonment term must be considered based on the facts and relevant aggravating factors of the case and not driven merely by the need to compensate for the exempted punishment; and (iv) the trial court should take a two-step process in making that decision: (a) whether an enhanced term of imprisonment is appropriate after considering all aggravating and mitigating factors; and (b) if an enhanced term of imprisonment is found to be appropriate, what would then be a just and adequate enhanced term of imprisonment commensurate with the offence.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing – Principles – Enhancement of sentence to compensate for exemption of whipping – Exemption from whipping for male convicts of more than 50 years of age under s. 289 of Criminal Procedure Code – Whether enhancement of sentence to be based on aggravating factors – Whether driven by need to compensate for exempted punishment – Whether trial judge adequately considered all mitigating factors – Whether enhancement of sentence caused prejudice to accused person