AHWAZ BIN ABDUL RANI [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

AHWAZ BIN ABDUL RANI [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

The High Court held the police lawfully arrested the accused under s31(1) DDA based on prior information and factual circumstances, the urine specimen was lawfully obtained under s31A, the positive test grounded the presumption under s37(k) which the defence failed to rebut, and therefore the Magistrate's conviction and sentence were correct and should be affirmed.

Citation
BA-41S(A)-3-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu (accused/appellant): Ahwaz bin Abdul Rani; Respondent (public Prosecutor): Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 January 2025
Case Number
BA-41S(A)-3-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Magistrate / High Court Appeal Heard and Dismissed (appeal to Court of Appeal Filed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Urine Screening/forensic Evidence, Presumption of Consumption (s37(k)), Arrest Under S31 DDA, Section 31 a and Admissibility of Samples
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Urine Screening/forensic Evidence Presumption of Consumption (s37(k)) Arrest Under S31 DDA +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahwaz bin Abdul Rani

Perayu (accused/appellant)

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent (public Prosecutor)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal From Magistrate / High Court Appeal Heard and Dismissed (appeal to Court of Appeal Filed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest complied with section 31(1) DDA
  2. 2 Whether the urine specimen was lawfully obtained under section 31A DDA
  3. 3 Whether the presumption under section 37(k) DDA properly applied and was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the police lawfully arrested the accused under s31(1) DDA based on prior information and factual circumstances, the urine specimen was lawfully obtained under s31A, the positive test grounded the presumption under s37(k) which the defence failed to rebut, and therefore the Magistrate's conviction and sentence were correct and should be affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 affirmed