[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) AZRIL SANI BIN RAMUDIN 2. ) ASRUL IMRAN BIN ABDULLAH (LISAN) 3. ) MARLINDA KIMPA (LISAN)

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) AZRIL SANI BIN RAMUDIN 2. ) ASRUL IMRAN BIN ABDULLAH (LISAN) 3. ) MARLINDA KIMPA (LISAN)

Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first and second accused had possession with knowledge of the drugs or acted with common intention because investigative deficiencies (notably absence of forensic linkage and evidence excluding access by others), gaps on accessibility and credible alternative explanations created reasonable doubt; no prima facie case against the third accused; therefore all accused are acquitted and discharged.

Citation
WA-45A-15-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; First Accused: Azril Sani bin Ramudin; Second Accused: Asrul Iman bin Abdullah; Third Accused: Marlinda Kimpa
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 July 2025
Case Number
WA-45A-15-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment
Outcome
All accused acquitted and discharged of the charges
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Possession and Mens Rea, Presumption of Trafficking (s37(da)), Common Intention (s34 Penal Code), Chain of Custody, Forensic/dna Evidence, Admissibility of Real Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Drug Trafficking Possession and Mens Rea Presumption of Trafficking (s37(da)) Common Intention (s34 Penal Code) +3 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Azril Sani bin Ramudin

First Accused

Asrul Iman bin Abdullah

Second Accused

Marlinda Kimpa

Third Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused had possession with knowledge of the drugs found at the premises
  2. 2 Whether presumption of trafficking under s37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act was properly invoked and rebutted
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved common intention under s34 of the Penal Code

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first and second accused had possession with knowledge of the drugs or acted with common intention because investigative deficiencies (notably absence of forensic linkage and evidence excluding access by others), gaps on accessibility and credible alternative explanations created reasonable doubt; no prima facie case against the third accused; therefore all accused are acquitted and discharged.

Court Disposition

All accused acquitted and discharged of the charges

Orders

  • Accused persons acquitted and discharged of the charges