[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

Because there was no marking of exhibits at the scene, no seizure form completed at the scene, and SP2 was involved in multiple arrests/seizures creating a real possibility of commingling, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and it was unsafe to call the accused to answer; accordingly the accused were acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution's case.

Citation
CB-83D-1910-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Adriana binti Azrin; Accused: Kamarudin bin Abdullah; Accused: Nik Zaidah binti Nik Long
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 November 2025
Case Number
CB-83D-1910-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence / Judgment at Close of Prosecution (no Case to Answer)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged (no case to answer)
Legal Topics
Chain of Custody, Prima Facie Case, Search and Seizure, Marking of Exhibits, Standard of Proof at Close of Prosecution
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Drug Offences Procedure Chain of Custody Prima Facie Case Search and Seizure Marking of Exhibits +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adriana binti Azrin

Prosecution

Kamarudin bin Abdullah

Accused

Nik Zaidah binti Nik Long

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence / Judgment at Close of Prosecution (no Case to Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused
  2. 2 Whether exhibits were properly identified and the chain of custody established given failures to mark and to complete seizure forms at scene
  3. 3 Whether multiple arrests and seizures by the same officer created reasonable doubt as to origin of exhibits

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was no marking of exhibits at the scene, no seizure form completed at the scene, and SP2 was involved in multiple arrests/seizures creating a real possibility of commingling, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and it was unsafe to call the accused to answer; accordingly the accused were acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution's case.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged (no case to answer)

Orders

  • Accused released and discharged without being called to enter their defence
  • Bail money returned