1. ) IZHAR BIN ABD SAMAD 2. ) OMAR BIN YAHYA

1. ) IZHAR BIN ABD SAMAD 2. ) OMAR BIN YAHYA

The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused had possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs: the open bag was in front of both accused, OKT2 was carrying a bag containing drugs, the chemist's analysis and chain of custody were reliable, the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) applied (weights exceeded 50g) and common intention under s34 was established by inference; the defence was an uncorroborated afterthought and failed to raise reasonable doubt, therefore convictions and sentences were upheld.

Citation
JA-45A-28-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Defendant (first Accused): Izhar bin Abd. Samad; Defendant (second Accused): Omar bin Yahya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 December 2025
Case Number
JA-45A-28-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (conviction and Sentence)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking Presumptions S37(da) ADB, Common Intention S34 Penal Code, Chain of Custody, Expert (chemist) Evidence, Standard of Proof and Defence Burden
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Presumptions S37(da) ADB Common Intention S34 Penal Code Chain of Custody Expert (chemist) Evidence +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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Izhar bin Abd. Samad

Defendant (first Accused)

Omar bin Yahya

Defendant (second Accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (conviction and Sentence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession, control and knowledge of the drugs by each accused
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applies
  3. 3 Whether there was common intention under section 34 Penal Code to possess and traffic the drugs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused had possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs: the open bag was in front of both accused, OKT2 was carrying a bag containing drugs, the chemist's analysis and chain of custody were reliable, the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) applied (weights exceeded 50g) and common intention under s34 was established by inference; the defence was an uncorroborated afterthought and failed to raise reasonable doubt, therefore convictions and sentences were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed

Orders

  • JA-45A-28-03/2022 (OKT1 & OKT2): Convicted under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with s34 Penal Code for trafficking Methamphetamine 82.65g; sentenced to life imprisonment from date of arrest (10/3/2021) and 12 strokes (s39B(2)).
  • JA-45A-29-03/2022 (OKT2 only): Convicted under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking Methamphetamine 91.19g; sentenced to life imprisonment from date of arrest (10/3/2021) and 12 strokes (s39B(2)).