MOHD FADZLI BIN SALEH

MOHD FADZLI BIN SALEH

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case of possession because it did not exclude the real possibility that others with access or ownership controlled the premises and the seized cigarettes; the investigating officer failed to perform necessary enquiries (did not take statements of title holders or neighbours), prosecution relied on contemporaneous documents incorrectly identifying the accused as owner, and there was no recorded admissible confession; therefore accused was discharged and released without being called to defend.

Citation
AB-83-504-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Fadzli bin Saleh
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 February 2026
Case Number
AB-83-504-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Customs/excise Offences / End of Prosecution; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence (decision Under Section 173 Cr Pc)
Outcome
Accused discharged and released; not called to enter defence (dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri).
Legal Topics
Possession and Knowledge, Prima Facie Standard, Burden of Proof in Tip‑off Searches, Forfeiture/lucut Hak, Investigative Obligations of Prosecution
Source Language
Malay/English
Customs Law Excise Law Criminal Law Evidence and Procedure Possession and Knowledge Prima Facie Standard Burden of Proof in Tip‑off Searches Forfeiture/lucut Hak +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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohd Fadzli bin Saleh

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Customs/excise Offences / End of Prosecution; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence (decision Under Section 173 Cr Pc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had possession and knowledge of the seized cigarettes
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution adduced a prima facie case to call the accused to answer
  3. 3 Whether the investigating officer conducted adequate enquiries to exclude access by others

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case of possession because it did not exclude the real possibility that others with access or ownership controlled the premises and the seized cigarettes; the investigating officer failed to perform necessary enquiries (did not take statements of title holders or neighbours), prosecution relied on contemporaneous documents incorrectly identifying the accused as owner, and there was no recorded admissible confession; therefore accused was discharged and released without being called to defend.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and released; not called to enter defence (dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri).

Orders

  • Return of accused’s bail monies to the surety.
  • Seized cigarettes and sample exhibits to be forfeited (lucut hak) to the Royal Malaysian Customs Department after expiry of appeal period pursuant to section 127(1) Customs Act 1967 for disposal.