[Pejabat Pengarah Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan] Shaari Bin Mamat

[Pejabat Pengarah Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan] Shaari Bin Mamat

Prosecution proved both statutory ingredients: the exhibits were Mitragynine (chemist's report) and the accused had control and knowledge of them given his exclusive presence in the house, immediate proximity (≈2m) to a piping-hot pot on a stove connected to gas, ownership/occupation of premises, lack of truthful explanation and unsupported afterthought defence about a third party; chain of custody unbroken; therefore guilty on both counts under s.30(3) Poisons Act 1952.

Citation
DJ-83D-1306-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Shaari bin Mamat
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 December 2023
Case Number
DJ-83D-1306-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession of Psychotropic Substance (poisons Act 1952) / Post Trial: Conviction and Sentencing (magistrate Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted on both counts under Section 30(3) Poisons Act 1952.
Legal Topics
Possession, Poisons Act 1952, Section 30(3), Prima Facie Case, Chain of Custody, Adverse Inference (s114(g) Evidence Act 1950), Sentencing and Deterrence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug/poison Control Law Evidence Law Possession Poisons Act 1952 Section 30(3) Prima Facie Case Chain of Custody +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 7 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Shaari bin Mamat

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession of Psychotropic Substance (poisons Act 1952) / Post Trial: Conviction and Sentencing (magistrate Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved identity of the substance as Mitragynine
  2. 2 Whether the accused had possession and knowledge (mens rea) of the substance
  3. 3 Whether a prima facie case existed under s.173 CPC requiring defence called

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved both statutory ingredients: the exhibits were Mitragynine (chemist's report) and the accused had control and knowledge of them given his exclusive presence in the house, immediate proximity (≈2m) to a piping-hot pot on a stove connected to gas, ownership/occupation of premises, lack of truthful explanation and unsupported afterthought defence about a third party; chain of custody unbroken; therefore guilty on both counts under s.30(3) Poisons Act 1952.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on both counts under Section 30(3) Poisons Act 1952.

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 30(3) Poisons Act 1952 on both counts
  • Sentenced to 8 months imprisonment for 1st charge from 28 December 2023