MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA

MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA

Court acquitted both accused because prosecution did not prove possession, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt: the location of seizure was unclear, charges were imprecise, there were significant gaps in investigation and chain of custody, material witnesses and evidence (phones, CCTV, clothing) were not produced, and forensic/fingerprint evidence did not link the accused; the defence successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under s37(d) ADB on balance of probabilities.

Citation
BA-45-54-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant (tertuduh Pertama): Muzaffar bin Zaaba; Defendant (tertuduh Kedua): Che Hasmidi bin Che Hassan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 June 2025
Case Number
BA-45-54-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs Trial / Judgment at End of Trial (acquittal at Close of Defence)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged on specified counts
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution/trafficking, Statutory Presumption Under S37(d) Dangerous Drugs Act, Chain of Custody, Adverse Inference Under S114(g) Evidence Act, Joint Liability (s34 Penal Code), Forensic Evidence and Fingerprint Analysis
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Distribution/trafficking Statutory Presumption Under S37(d) Dangerous Drugs Act Chain of Custody Adverse Inference Under S114(g) Evidence Act +2 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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Muzaffar bin Zaaba

Defendant (tertuduh Pertama)

Che Hasmidi bin Che Hassan

Defendant (tertuduh Kedua)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs Trial / Judgment at End of Trial (acquittal at Close of Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt possession, control and knowledge of the drugs alleged
  2. 2 Whether elements of distribution/trafficking under Dangerous Drugs Act (s39B/ s39A/ s12(2)) were established
  3. 3 Whether statutory presumption under s37(d) ADB applied or was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

Court acquitted both accused because prosecution did not prove possession, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt: the location of seizure was unclear, charges were imprecise, there were significant gaps in investigation and chain of custody, material witnesses and evidence (phones, CCTV, clothing) were not produced, and forensic/fingerprint evidence did not link the accused; the defence successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under s37(d) ADB on balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged on specified counts

Orders

  • Both accused acquitted and discharged on charge P2(A) (joint charge).
  • Muzaffar bin Zaaba (Tertuduh Pertama) acquitted and discharged on charges P2(B), P2(C), P2(E) and P2(F).