PENDAKWARAYA Timbalan 1.IRMAN HADI BIN ABD MANAN 2.MOHD FAIZAL BIN AMRAN

PENDAKWARAYA Timbalan 1.IRMAN HADI BIN ABD MANAN 2.MOHD FAIZAL BIN AMRAN

The court found the prosecution proved custody and control and, by irresistible inference from surrounding circumstances (large quantities, smell of brewing, location in premises rented/paid for by accused and presence of accused in living area), proved knowledge of the mitragynine; with s.30(4) Poisons Act 1952 applying the accused were deemed in possession and guilty beyond reasonable doubt, warranting conviction and sentencing.

Citation
BH82D-22-12/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Irman Hadi bin Abd Manan; Accused: Mohd Faizal bin Amran
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 November 2021
Case Number
BH82D-22-12/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession of Psychotropic Substance (poison Act 1952) / Magistrate Court Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted on three counts of possession under s.30(3) Poison Act 1952 read with s.34 Penal Code
Legal Topics
Possession, Joint Possession, Custody and Control, Presumption of Knowledge S.30(4) Poisons Act 1952, Chain of Custody, Sentencing Principles
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Administrative Law (police Procedure) Possession Joint Possession Custody and Control Presumption of Knowledge S.30(4) Poisons Act 1952 Chain of Custody +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Irman Hadi bin Abd Manan

Accused

Mohd Faizal bin Amran

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession of Psychotropic Substance (poison Act 1952) / Magistrate Court Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were in possession of mitragynine
  2. 2 Whether the accused had custody or control of the seized items
  3. 3 Whether the accused had knowledge of the nature of the seized items

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution proved custody and control and, by irresistible inference from surrounding circumstances (large quantities, smell of brewing, location in premises rented/paid for by accused and presence of accused in living area), proved knowledge of the mitragynine; with s.30(4) Poisons Act 1952 applying the accused were deemed in possession and guilty beyond reasonable doubt, warranting conviction and sentencing.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on three counts of possession under s.30(3) Poison Act 1952 read with s.34 Penal Code

Orders

  • Convicted on all three charges
  • Charge 1: Fine RM3000 and in default 3 months imprisonment