ISMAWARDI BIN ISMAIL

ISMAWARDI BIN ISMAIL

Material discrepancies between the wife's written statement (D21) and police testimony, combined with the investigating officer's failure to conduct meaningful follow-up investigation and the prosecution's refusal to call a material and available witness, prejudiced the accused; once an Alcontara-type notice was effectively given, the burden shifted to the prosecution to investigate and rebut, and the court was entitled to draw an adverse inference under s.114(g); therefore it was unsafe to order the accused to enter his defence and he must be acquitted and discharged.

Citation
KA-45A-47-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Ismawardi bin Ismail
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 August 2025
Case Number
KA-45A-47-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Trial at Close of Prosecution Case (accused Discharged)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Alcontara Notice, Duty to Investigate, Adverse Inference Under S.114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Failure to Call Material Witness, Fair Trial / Right to Fair Investigation, Sections 39 B and 12 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs / Narcotics Law Evidence Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Alcontara Notice Duty to Investigate Adverse Inference Under S.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Ismawardi bin Ismail

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Trial at Close of Prosecution Case (accused Discharged)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case for trafficking and possession of controlled substances
  2. 2 Whether the wife's written statement (D21) constituted an Alcontara notice triggering a duty on the prosecution to investigate
  3. 3 Whether the investigating officer and prosecution failed in their duty to investigate and call a material witness (Norlela binti Shamat)

Ratio Decidendi

Material discrepancies between the wife's written statement (D21) and police testimony, combined with the investigating officer's failure to conduct meaningful follow-up investigation and the prosecution's refusal to call a material and available witness, prejudiced the accused; once an Alcontara-type notice was effectively given, the burden shifted to the prosecution to investigate and rebut, and the court was entitled to draw an adverse inference under s.114(g); therefore it was unsafe to order the accused to enter his defence and he must be acquitted and discharged.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Ismawardi bin Ismail is acquitted and discharged