MOHD ALI ZAINI BIN ROZALI

MOHD ALI ZAINI BIN ROZALI

Prosecution established a complete chain of custody and reliable laboratory confirmation of amphetamine and methamphetamine in the accused's urine; the statutory presumption under s37(k) ADB 1952 applied and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities (including failure to call the treating doctor, permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950); contradictions and alleged investigative lapses were immaterial and did not create reasonable doubt; conviction under s15(1)(a) ADB 1952 therefore justified.

Citation
AB-82D-5-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused/defendant: MOHD ALI ZAINI BIN ROZALI (No K/P.: 920211025489)
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 January 2026
Case Number
AB-82D-5-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence (adb 1952) / Judgment After Full Trial and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted and found guilty under s15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
Legal Topics
Consumption/possession of Controlled Drugs, Presumption of Consumption Under S37(k) ADB 1952, Chain of Custody, Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness (s114(g) Evidence Act 1950), Sentencing — Fine or Imprisonment Alternative; Mandatory Supervision Under S38 B
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Consumption/possession of Controlled Drugs Presumption of Consumption Under S37(k) ADB 1952 Chain of Custody Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness (s114(g) Evidence Act 1950) Sentencing — Fine or Imprisonment Alternative; Mandatory Supervision Under S38 B

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

MOHD ALI ZAINI BIN ROZALI (No K/P.: 920211025489)

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence (adb 1952) / Judgment After Full Trial and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had introduced amphetamine and methamphetamine into his body under s15(1)(a) ADB 1952
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under s37(k) ADB 1952 applied and whether defence rebutted it on balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether medical prescription or ingestion of lawful medication could explain positive urine result

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution established a complete chain of custody and reliable laboratory confirmation of amphetamine and methamphetamine in the accused's urine; the statutory presumption under s37(k) ADB 1952 applied and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities (including failure to call the treating doctor, permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950); contradictions and alleged investigative lapses were immaterial and did not create reasonable doubt; conviction under s15(1)(a) ADB 1952 therefore justified.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted and found guilty under s15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952

Orders

  • Convicted under section 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
  • Sentence: Fine of RM5,000.00