[ ] Aufar Izhar Bin Anuar

[ ] Aufar Izhar Bin Anuar

On the evidence and maximum assessment of prosecution witnesses the court held prosecution proved prima facie that the seized substances were cannabis, that the accused had custody and control (actual possession of some and deemed possession of remainder under S.37(d)), that he had knowledge of the drugs, and that the quantity and circumstances established trafficking; statements leading to discovery were admissible under S.27; accused failed to rebut presumption on balance of probabilities and was guilty under S.6 and S.39B(1)(a) DDA.

Citation
BA-45A-38-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Aufar Izhar bin Anuar
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 May 2022
Case Number
BA-45A-38-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences / Trial Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Convicted
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking (distribution), Statutory Presumptions (s37(d)), Admissibility of Information (s27 Evidence Act), Knowledge, Sentencing Death Penalty
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Trafficking (distribution) Statutory Presumptions (s37(d)) Admissibility of Information (s27 Evidence Act) Knowledge +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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Aufar Izhar bin Anuar

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences / Trial Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved prima facie case
  2. 2 Whether accused had custody, control and possession of drugs
  3. 3 Whether accused had knowledge of the drugs

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and maximum assessment of prosecution witnesses the court held prosecution proved prima facie that the seized substances were cannabis, that the accused had custody and control (actual possession of some and deemed possession of remainder under S.37(d)), that he had knowledge of the drugs, and that the quantity and circumstances established trafficking; statements leading to discovery were admissible under S.27; accused failed to rebut presumption on balance of probabilities and was guilty under S.6 and S.39B(1)(a) DDA.

Court Disposition

Convicted

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952: 4 years imprisonment from date of arrest
  • Convicted under Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952: sentence of death (hanging) imposed pursuant to Section 39B(2)