1. ) MOHD NORSHAHREL BIN ABDUL MANAP 2. ) MUHAMMAD IZZUDIN BIN ZAILAN 3. ) MUHAMAD SIDEK BIN ZULKAFLI 4. ) MOHD ANUAR BIN ABDUL WAHAB

1. ) MOHD NORSHAHREL BIN ABDUL MANAP 2. ) MUHAMMAD IZZUDIN BIN ZAILAN 3. ) MUHAMAD SIDEK BIN ZULKAFLI 4. ) MOHD ANUAR BIN ABDUL WAHAB

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because it did not exclude the realistic possibility of access by others to the open pondok, failed to call material witnesses and the police evidence contained significant inconsistencies and investigative gaps; therefore accused could not be said to have exclusive custody or control or knowledge of the cannabis and must be discharged under s173(f)(ii).

Citation
AB-83D-884-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor (PENDAKWA RAYA); Accused: Mohd Norshahrel bin Abdul Manap; Accused: Muhammad Izzudin bin Zailan; Accused: Muhamad Sidek bin Zulkafli; Accused: Mohd Anuar bin Abdul Wahab
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 October 2023
Case Number
AB-83D-884-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / After Close of Prosecution Case (decision on Prima Facie Evidence Under S173)
Outcome
All four accused discharged and released without calling for defence (discharged under s173(f)(ii)); bail returned to surety; exhibits ordered destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Legal Topics
Possession, Prima Facie, Access by Others to Place of Seizure, Exclusion of Access, Investigation Obligations, Chain of Custody
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Police Procedure Possession Prima Facie Access by Others to Place of Seizure Exclusion of Access +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor (PENDAKWA RAYA)

Prosecution

Mohd Norshahrel bin Abdul Manap

Accused

Muhammad Izzudin bin Zailan

Accused

Muhamad Sidek bin Zulkafli

Accused

Mohd Anuar bin Abdul Wahab

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / After Close of Prosecution Case (decision on Prima Facie Evidence Under S173)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had possession (control and knowledge) of the cannabis found at the scene
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution excluded possibility of access by others to the pondok (open shelter)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution evidence established a prima facie case to call the accused to enter defence

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because it did not exclude the realistic possibility of access by others to the open pondok, failed to call material witnesses and the police evidence contained significant inconsistencies and investigative gaps; therefore accused could not be said to have exclusive custody or control or knowledge of the cannabis and must be discharged under s173(f)(ii).

Court Disposition

All four accused discharged and released without calling for defence (discharged under s173(f)(ii)); bail returned to surety; exhibits ordered destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Orders

  • Accused discharged and released without calling for defence under s173(f)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code
  • Bail/jaminan returned to the surety