[TIMBALAN ] ZULNAZ ATTRASH BIN ZULYADZRI

[TIMBALAN ] ZULNAZ ATTRASH BIN ZULYADZRI

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession and control of the bag containing the drugs (bag was on accused's back, contained his driving licence, chain of custody intact and chemical analysis confirmed drug types/weights). Possession supported the statutory presumption of distribution under s37(da) DDA and the accused's third‑party explanation (Raj) was uncorroborated, internally inconsistent and not credible. Absence of CCTV or fingerprints did not undermine the prosecution's primary evidence. Accordingly the accused was guilty on all three counts and sentenced as provided.

Citation
KA-45A-23-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: ZULNAZ ATTRASH BIN ZULYADZRI
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 May 2025
Case Number
KA-45A-23-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Guilty on all three counts; convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Possession, Presumption of Distribution (s37(da) Dda), Chain of Custody, Investigative Obligations (cctv, Fingerprints), Sentencing Discretion After Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Procedure Possession Presumption of Distribution (s37(da) Dda) Chain of Custody Investigative Obligations (cctv, Fingerprints) +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecutor

ZULNAZ ATTRASH BIN ZULYADZRI

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved possession of the drugs by the accused
  2. 2 Whether possession permits a prima facie inference of trafficking/distribution under section 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether gaps in investigation (CCTV, fingerprints, investigation of third party 'Raj') undermine the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession and control of the bag containing the drugs (bag was on accused's back, contained his driving licence, chain of custody intact and chemical analysis confirmed drug types/weights). Possession supported the statutory presumption of distribution under s37(da) DDA and the accused's third‑party explanation (Raj) was uncorroborated, internally inconsistent and not credible. Absence of CCTV or fingerprints did not undermine the prosecution's primary evidence. Accordingly the accused was guilty on all three counts and sentenced as provided.

Court Disposition

Guilty on all three counts; convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Count 1 (heroin 29.9g): life imprisonment and 12 strokes of the rotan
  • Count 2 (methamphetamine 111.63g): life imprisonment and 12 strokes of the rotan