PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya 1. ) Mehdi Ebrahimkhani 2. ) Hamidreza Ghanatiaslkamari 3. ) Mojtaba

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya 1. ) Mehdi Ebrahimkhani 2. ) Hamidreza Ghanatiaslkamari 3. ) Mojtaba

The court held the chemist report established the seized substance as 441.50g methamphetamine (scheduled drug). Drugs were in open, accessible cupboard in the apartment occupied by accused 1 and 2; their proximity, conduct during the raid (delay, fumes, panic), and DNA/tenancy evidence supported an inference of knowledge and control. Because the weight exceeded 50g, the statutory presumption under s.37(da)(xvi) DDA applied and established prima facie trafficking for accused 1 and 2 who were therefore called to enter their defence. The prosecution failed to adduce cogent evidence linking accused 3 to possession or trafficking; tenancy and DNA traces were insufficient and accused 3 was...

Citation
WA-45A-11-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Mehdi Ebrahimkhani; Accused: Hamidreza Ghanatiaslkamari; Accused: Mojtaba
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 April 2021
Case Number
WA-45A-11-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act (section 39 B) / End of Prosecution's Case — Determination of Prima Facie Under S.180 Cpc; Accused 1 and 2 Called to Enter Defence; Accused 3 Acquitted
Outcome
Accused 1 and 2: prima facie case proven and called to enter their defence; Accused 3: acquitted and discharged.
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Statutory Presumption (s.37 Dda), Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code), Prima Facie Assessment (s.180 Cpc), Search and Seizure, DNA Evidence, Identification (cctv)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedure Possession Trafficking Statutory Presumption (s.37 Dda) Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code) +4 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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Mehdi Ebrahimkhani

Accused

Hamidreza Ghanatiaslkamari

Accused

Mojtaba

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act (section 39 B) / End of Prosecution's Case — Determination of Prima Facie Under S.180 Cpc; Accused 1 and 2 Called to Enter Defence; Accused 3 Acquitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the seized substances scheduled dangerous drugs under the DDA 1952?
  2. 2 Did each accused have possession (physical control and knowledge) of the drugs?
  3. 3 Can trafficking be established by statutory presumption under s.37(da)(xvi) DDA 1952?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the chemist report established the seized substance as 441.50g methamphetamine (scheduled drug). Drugs were in open, accessible cupboard in the apartment occupied by accused 1 and 2; their proximity, conduct during the raid (delay, fumes, panic), and DNA/tenancy evidence supported an inference of knowledge and control. Because the weight exceeded 50g, the statutory presumption under s.37(da)(xvi) DDA applied and established prima facie trafficking for accused 1 and 2 who were therefore called to enter their defence. The prosecution failed to adduce cogent evidence linking accused 3 to possession or trafficking; tenancy and DNA traces were insufficient and accused 3 was...

Court Disposition

Accused 1 and 2: prima facie case proven and called to enter their defence; Accused 3: acquitted and discharged.

Orders

  • Accused 1 and 2 to enter their defence (tendered evidence under s.402B and gave sworn testimony).
  • Accused 3 acquitted and discharged (no prima facie case proven).