[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOKTHAR BIN SAMOH

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOKTHAR BIN SAMOH

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because evidence did not establish that the accused had possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs: the stor was accessible to others, the accused had permission merely to rest, there was no evidence of exclusive control (keys, exclusive occupancy, fingerprints or DNA) and thus the statutory presumption of trafficking could not be invoked despite drug weights; therefore the accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Citation
CB-45-7-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDakwa Raya; Accused: MOKTHAR BIN SAMOH
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Case Number
CB-45-7-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences / Judgment at Close of Prosecution (no Case to Answer)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged on all charges
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Prima Facie Case, Presumptions of Law, Chain of Custody
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Possession Trafficking Prima Facie Case Presumptions of Law Chain of Custody

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDakwa Raya

Prosecution

MOKTHAR BIN SAMOH

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences / Judgment at Close of Prosecution (no Case to Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized substances are dangerous drugs under the law
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case that the accused had possession, control and knowledge of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of trafficking (s.37(da) DDA 1952) could be invoked given the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because evidence did not establish that the accused had possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs: the stor was accessible to others, the accused had permission merely to rest, there was no evidence of exclusive control (keys, exclusive occupancy, fingerprints or DNA) and thus the statutory presumption of trafficking could not be invoked despite drug weights; therefore the accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged on all charges

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged of all charges
  • No call to defence as prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case