Two men convicted of beating a dog in 2023 have fines reduced from RM50,000 to RM30,000 each by the Penang High Court.

PUTRAJAYA: The Penang High Court has upheld the conviction of two men for beating a dog three years ago but reduced the fine imposed on each of them from RM50,000 to RM30,000.

Justice Choong Yeow Choy dismissed Rosli Mat Zin and Suhaili Haron’s appeal against their conviction under Section 29 (1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015, finding that the conviction was grounded on admissible direct evidence and properly admitted video evidence.

READ MORE: Man fined RM30,000 for beating pet dog in viral video

However, he allowed their appeal against the sentence and varied the RM50,000 fine in default 12 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court with a fine of RM30,000 each, in default six months’ imprisonment.

In his judgment dated June 6, Justice Choong said a clear and unequivocal message must be conveyed to the public that Section 29(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 should be taken seriously, as the provision serves not only a punitive function but also an important deterrent and educative purpose in the public interest.

“This court is of the view that the appropriate sentence in the present case is a fine. Accordingly, a fine of RM30,000 is imposed on each appellant, and in default of payment, six months’ imprisonment,” he said.

Section 29 (1) of the Act provides that upon conviction, a person is liable to a fine of not less than RM20,000 and not more than RM100,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.

According to the judgment, Rosli, 56, a fisherman and Suhaili, 52, a bus driver, were convicted by the Sessions Court for beating a dog after a full trial concluded on July 31, last year.

They were found guilty of beating a dog in Kampung Teluk Tempoyak, Batu Maung, Penang, at 8.30 pm on July 8, 2023.

Justice Choong rejected the appellants’ argument that the trial judge had erred in fact and law by failing to appreciate that the police investigation was conducted contrary to the provisions and procedures of the Animal Welfare Act.

The appellants contended that under that Act, only appointed animal welfare officers have the statutory authority to investigate offences under the Act.

However, Justice Choong held that while the Act contains provisions relating to animal welfare officers, those provisions do not exclude the general investigative powers of the police, which derive from the Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Act 1967.

He said that no provision in the Animal Welfare Act restricted the police from handling cases arising under the Act.

 The Sun Malaysia