PENDAKWARAYA MOHD ZURIZAL BIN SAAD

PENDAKWARAYA MOHD ZURIZAL BIN SAAD

Although the prosecution proved identity, weight and chain of custody of the drugs and established a prima facie case, the defence raised a specific, material account (SD2's testimony that an officer was seen carrying a package into the premises) that cast suspicion on planting; prosecution failed to call rebuttal evidence (notably SP3) to negate that account after it was put and thereby left a gap producing a reasonable doubt. That failure defeated the prosecution's obligation to negate the defence and rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking, requiring acquittal.

Citation
PA-45A-38-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Mohd Zurizal bin Saad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 January 1900
Case Number
PA-45A-38-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment (end of Trial)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking Presumption (s37(da)), Chain of Custody, Burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Adverse Inference (s114 Illustration (g)), Search and Seizure, Disclosure of Informer
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession Trafficking Presumption (s37(da)) Chain of Custody Burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt +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 8 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Mohd Zurizal bin Saad

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment (end of Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had custody, control and knowledge of the impugned drugs
  2. 2 Whether identity, nature and weight of drugs were proven and chain of custody intact
  3. 3 Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) DDA was triggered and whether it was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

Although the prosecution proved identity, weight and chain of custody of the drugs and established a prima facie case, the defence raised a specific, material account (SD2's testimony that an officer was seen carrying a package into the premises) that cast suspicion on planting; prosecution failed to call rebuttal evidence (notably SP3) to negate that account after it was put and thereby left a gap producing a reasonable doubt. That failure defeated the prosecution's obligation to negate the defence and rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking, requiring acquittal.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted

Orders

  • Accused discharged and acquitted of the offence charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952