[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMAD AZLAN BIN RAMLI 2. ) MUHAMAD FARISYA FADLY BIN YAHAYA

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMAD AZLAN BIN RAMLI 2. ) MUHAMAD FARISYA FADLY BIN YAHAYA

Accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking on the balance of probabilities by providing a probable, consistent innocent carrier explanation, compounded by prosecution's failure to call material witnesses; prosecution failed to adduce direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence of actual knowledge or exclusive possession, therefore guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused must be acquitted.

Citation
WA-45A-15-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR; Accused: MUHAMAD AZLAN BIN RAMLI; Accused: MUHAMAD FARISYA FADLY BIN YAHAYA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 October 2025
Case Number
WA-45A-15-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Presumption of Trafficking, Innocent Carrier Defence, Wilful Blindness, Adverse Inference, Burden and Standard of Proof
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Drug Trafficking Presumption of Trafficking Innocent Carrier Defence Wilful Blindness Adverse Inference +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Prosecution

MUHAMAD AZLAN BIN RAMLI

Accused

MUHAMAD FARISYA FADLY BIN YAHAYA

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Judgment (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused had exclusive possession of the drugs found in the boot
  2. 2 Whether mere proximity to the drugs is sufficient to prove possession
  3. 3 Whether non-production of material witnesses permits an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking on the balance of probabilities by providing a probable, consistent innocent carrier explanation, compounded by prosecution's failure to call material witnesses; prosecution failed to adduce direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence of actual knowledge or exclusive possession, therefore guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused must be acquitted.

Court Disposition

Acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Both accused persons are acquitted and discharged from the charge for trafficking dangerous drugs