[ ] 1. ) Azman Bin Abdul Hamid 2. ) Shahril Bin Ahmad 3. ) Saifol Bin Ahmad

[ ] 1. ) Azman Bin Abdul Hamid 2. ) Shahril Bin Ahmad 3. ) Saifol Bin Ahmad

The Court of Appeal held that evidence of a negotiated sale to an agent provocateur established trafficking under s.2 DDA and that, on the whole record, there was overwhelming evidence of Respondent 1's possession and knowledge; accordingly the trial judge's acquittal of Respondent 1 was set aside and replaced with conviction under s.39A(2) DDA with five years’ imprisonment from 30.09.2025. The absence of phone-call analyses did not cause miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to prove Respondent 3's involvement beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal of Respondent 3 was upheld.

Citation
K-05(LB)-441-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Perayu / Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Respondent 1 / Accused: Azman bin Abdul Hamid; Respondent 2 / Accused: Shahril bin Ahmad; Respondent 3 / Accused: Saifol bin Ahmad
Court
LB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 September 2025
Case Number
K-05(LB)-441-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (appeal by Prosecution) / Judgment on Appeal by the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Agent Provocateur Evidence, Trafficking/sale Vs Possession, Statutory Presumptions (s.37(da)), Entrapment, Standard of Proof
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Agent Provocateur Evidence Trafficking/sale Vs Possession Statutory Presumptions (s.37(da)) Entrapment +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Perayu / Prosecutor

Azman bin Abdul Hamid

Respondent 1 / Accused

Shahril bin Ahmad

Respondent 2 / Accused

Saifol bin Ahmad

Respondent 3 / Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (appeal by Prosecution) / Judgment on Appeal by the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in acquitting the respondents at end of defence despite prosecution evidence of negotiated sale to an agent provocateur
  2. 2 Whether evidence of an agent provocateur requires corroboration or exclusion and the applicability of s.40A and s.37(da) ADB
  3. 3 Whether a negotiated sale to an agent provocateur establishes trafficking under s.2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act obviating the need to invoke statutory presumptions of possession

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that evidence of a negotiated sale to an agent provocateur established trafficking under s.2 DDA and that, on the whole record, there was overwhelming evidence of Respondent 1's possession and knowledge; accordingly the trial judge's acquittal of Respondent 1 was set aside and replaced with conviction under s.39A(2) DDA with five years’ imprisonment from 30.09.2025. The absence of phone-call analyses did not cause miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to prove Respondent 3's involvement beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal of Respondent 3 was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Conviction substituted for Respondent 1: guilty on both counts; sentence of imprisonment 5 years to run from 30.09.2025 (concurrent for both charges) under s.39A(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Acquittal and discharge of Respondent 3 upheld; appeal dismissed as to Respondent 3