PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) AZHARI BIN MUHAMMAD NUR 2. ) MAZRULHISHAM

PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) AZHARI BIN MUHAMMAD NUR 2. ) MAZRULHISHAM

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie that either accused had the necessary control, custody or knowledge of the seized drugs or that they shared a common intention under section 34; material gaps included uncertainty who last had the vehicle, insufficient duration/exclusive access by accused, unreliable inference from passport and lack of fingerprint/DNA linking the accused to the drug-containing bags; accordingly no prima facie case and accused are discharged and acquitted.

Citation
PA-45A-48-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Azhari bin Muhammad Nur; Accused: Mazrulhisham
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 January 2022
Case Number
PA-45A-48-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Judgment — Acquittal at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
Both accused discharged and acquitted on both charges
Legal Topics
Possession and Control of Drugs, Joint Liability Under Section 34 Penal Code, Chain of Custody, Forensic Analysis, Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution Case, Section 37(da) Presumption Under Dangerous Drugs Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Possession and Control of Drugs Joint Liability Under Section 34 Penal Code Chain of Custody Forensic Analysis Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution Case +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Azhari bin Muhammad Nur

Accused

Mazrulhisham

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Judgment — Acquittal at Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved control/possession and knowledge of the seized drugs by each accused
  2. 2 Whether there was a common intention/joint liability under section 34 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether prosecution established chain of custody and identity of the drugs

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie that either accused had the necessary control, custody or knowledge of the seized drugs or that they shared a common intention under section 34; material gaps included uncertainty who last had the vehicle, insufficient duration/exclusive access by accused, unreliable inference from passport and lack of fingerprint/DNA linking the accused to the drug-containing bags; accordingly no prima facie case and accused are discharged and acquitted.

Court Disposition

Both accused discharged and acquitted on both charges

Orders

  • Both accused are discharged and acquitted from Pertuduhan Pertama and Pertuduhan Kedua under Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952