1. ) MOHAMAD QAMARUL MUSLIHUDDIN BIN ABD WAHAB 2. ) MUHAMMAD ARIF BIN MAMAT NOH

1. ) MOHAMAD QAMARUL MUSLIHUDDIN BIN ABD WAHAB 2. ) MUHAMMAD ARIF BIN MAMAT NOH

The court found the prosecution failed to establish that the First Accused had knowledge, custody or control of the drugs due to lack of any factual link or exclusivity of use of the motorcycle; although a prima facie case was initially found against the Second Accused based on registration and conduct, defence evidence raised reasonable doubt about exclusive control and access (including testimony that the motorcycle was parked and possibly used by a third party), and the presumption under s37(d) DDA was rebutted on the balance of probabilities; accordingly both accused were discharged and acquitted.

Citation
DA-83D-1417-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; First Accused: Muhammad Qamarul Muslihuddin bin Abd Wahab; Second Accused: Muhammad Arif bin Mamat Noh
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 September 2025
Case Number
DA-83D-1417-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Magistrate Court Grounds of Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Both Accused discharged and acquitted of the charge
Legal Topics
Possession, Knowledge and Control, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Statutory Presumptions
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Possession Knowledge and Control Prima Facie Case Burden of Proof Statutory Presumptions

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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Muhammad Qamarul Muslihuddin bin Abd Wahab

First Accused

Muhammad Arif bin Mamat Noh

Second Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Magistrate Court Grounds of Judgment (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with s39A(1) and s34 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the First Accused had knowledge, custody and control of the drugs found in the motorcycle
  3. 3 Whether the Second Accused had knowledge, custody and control of the drugs given motorcycle registration and circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution failed to establish that the First Accused had knowledge, custody or control of the drugs due to lack of any factual link or exclusivity of use of the motorcycle; although a prima facie case was initially found against the Second Accused based on registration and conduct, defence evidence raised reasonable doubt about exclusive control and access (including testimony that the motorcycle was parked and possibly used by a third party), and the presumption under s37(d) DDA was rebutted on the balance of probabilities; accordingly both accused were discharged and acquitted.

Court Disposition

Both Accused discharged and acquitted of the charge

Orders

  • Both Accused are discharged and acquitted of the charge under section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 39A(1) and section 34 Penal Code