MUHAMMAD AMIRUL AFIQ BIN ABDUL RASHID

MUHAMMAD AMIRUL AFIQ BIN ABDUL RASHID

On maximum evaluation of the evidence the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized tablets were MDMA listed in the First Schedule and were in the accused's possession (found in his front right pocket with contemporaneous markings and documents, positive identification by seizure and chemist...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-83D-7468-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Muhammad Amirul Afiq bin Abdul Rashid
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Case Number
WA-83D-7468-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs / Conviction and Sentencing at Trial; Appeal Pending
Outcome
Accused found guilty and convicted under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Legal Topics
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 12(2), Section 39 A(1), Possession, Chain of Custody, Admissibility of Computer Generated Evidence (s90 A), Sentencing, Stay of Execution
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Procedure Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Section 12(2) Section 39 A(1) Possession +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Muhammad Amirul Afiq bin Abdul Rashid

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs / Conviction and Sentencing at Trial; Appeal Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized substance was a scheduled dangerous drug
  2. 2 Whether the accused had custody and knowledge (possession) of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether chain of evidence was intact from seizure to chemist analysis

Ratio Decidendi

On maximum evaluation of the evidence the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized tablets were MDMA listed in the First Schedule and were in the accused's possession (found in his front right pocket with contemporaneous markings and documents, positive identification by seizure and chemist analysis), the chain of custody was intact and the defence allegation of planting did not raise a reasonable doubt; conviction entered under s12(2) DDA and sentence imposed (3 years imprisonment and 3 strokes), with stay of execution granted only for the whipping pending appeal.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty and convicted under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Orders

  • Imprisonment for three years
  • Three strokes of the rattan (whipping) - execution of whipping stayed pending appeal