[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] Hasram Bin Mohamad

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] Hasram Bin Mohamad

Maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence established physical possession and control of scheduled methamphetamine found in a waist bag worn by the accused, supported by credible chain of custody and expert chemical/pathology reports; procedural irregularities identified did not render the evidence inadmissible, statutory presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Act applied and were not rebutted on balance of probabilities; therefore prima facie case proven for s.12(2) and s.15(1)(a) offences and accused was properly convicted and sentenced.

Citation
DG-82D-11-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Hasram bin Mohamad
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Case Number
DG-82D-11-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (drug Offences) / Conviction and Sentencing at Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Accused convicted on all charges (two counts under s.12(2) ADB and one count under s.15(1)(a) ADB) and sentenced
Legal Topics
Possession of Controlled Drugs, Consumption of Drugs, Chain of Custody, Admissibility of Evidence, Search and Seizure Compliance, Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act, Section 31 a Urine Sampling, Sentencing and Deterrence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Possession of Controlled Drugs Consumption of Drugs Chain of Custody Admissibility of Evidence +4 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 9 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Hasram bin Mohamad

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (drug Offences) / Conviction and Sentencing at Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case for possession under s.12(2) ADB
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved consumption under s.15(1)(a) ADB via urine analysis and s.31A compliance
  3. 3 Whether the search/seizure and chain of custody were lawful and unbroken

Ratio Decidendi

Maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence established physical possession and control of scheduled methamphetamine found in a waist bag worn by the accused, supported by credible chain of custody and expert chemical/pathology reports; procedural irregularities identified did not render the evidence inadmissible, statutory presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Act applied and were not rebutted on balance of probabilities; therefore prima facie case proven for s.12(2) and s.15(1)(a) offences and accused was properly convicted and sentenced.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on all charges (two counts under s.12(2) ADB and one count under s.15(1)(a) ADB) and sentenced

Orders

  • Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment on first count under s.12(2) ADB
  • Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment on second count under s.12(2) ADB