[ ] Aufar Izhar Bin Anuar

[ ] Aufar Izhar Bin Anuar

Prosecution proved a prima facie case: accused had items and keys in his custody, he led officers to the location and indicated where the cannabis was stored, laboratory analysis confirmed 1,401.5g cannabis, statutory presumption under s37(d) was triggered and not rebutted on the balance of probabilities, statements leading to discovery were admissible under s27 after s39B warning; quantity and paraphernalia supported an inference of trafficking; accordingly accused convicted under s6 and s39B(1)(a) and sentenced as mandated by statute.

Citation
BA-45A-38-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: AUFAR IZHAR BIN ANUAR
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 May 2022
Case Number
BA-45A-38-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Trial Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused found guilty on both counts (Section 6 and Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952); convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Possession and Control, Knowledge of Drugs, Statutory Presumptions Under S37(d) DDA 1952, Admissibility Under S27 Evidence Act 1950, Trafficking Definition and Quantity Inference, Sentencing Under S39 B DDA 1952
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Possession and Control Knowledge of Drugs Statutory Presumptions Under S37(d) DDA 1952 Admissibility Under S27 Evidence Act 1950 Trafficking Definition and Quantity Inference +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

AUFAR IZHAR BIN ANUAR

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Trial Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case under Section 6 and Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  2. 2 Whether the accused had custody, control and possession of the seized cannabis
  3. 3 Whether the accused had knowledge of the drugs found

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved a prima facie case: accused had items and keys in his custody, he led officers to the location and indicated where the cannabis was stored, laboratory analysis confirmed 1,401.5g cannabis, statutory presumption under s37(d) was triggered and not rebutted on the balance of probabilities, statements leading to discovery were admissible under s27 after s39B warning; quantity and paraphernalia supported an inference of trafficking; accordingly accused convicted under s6 and s39B(1)(a) and sentenced as mandated by statute.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty on both counts (Section 6 and Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952); convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 6 DDA 1952: sentenced to 4 years imprisonment from date of arrest
  • Convicted under Section 39B(1)(a) DDA 1952: sentenced to death by hanging pursuant to Section 39B(2) DDA 1952