PENDAKWARAYA Abd. Aziz bin Mohamad Rahim (No. K/P: 770717-01-6327)

PENDAKWARAYA Abd. Aziz bin Mohamad Rahim (No. K/P: 770717-01-6327)

The court found the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it relied solely on the testimony of SP3, whose testimony contained material inconsistencies and omissions (motorcycle key/vehicle not recorded or seized; conflicting police reports concerning urine test; unexplained variances about injuries) and was unsupported by corroboration from other raiding team members; accordingly the presumption under section 37(da) could not be invoked and the accused was acquitted under section 180(2) CPC.

Citation
JA-45A-56-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: ABD AZIZ BIN MOHAMAD RAHIM
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 September 2021
Case Number
JA-45A-56-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Decision at End of Prosecution's Case
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged; not called to make his defence
Legal Topics
Possession of Controlled Substances, Trafficking/distribution, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Police Witness, Presumption Under Section 37(da) ADB 1952, Conduct Evidence Under Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) Poisons Act 1952 Evidence Law Possession of Controlled Substances Trafficking/distribution Prima Facie Case Burden of Proof +3 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

ABD AZIZ BIN MOHAMAD RAHIM

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Decision at End of Prosecution's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution witness SP3 was a credible and reliable witness
  2. 2 Whether the accused's conduct (attempt to flee, demeanor) amounted to evidence of guilt
  3. 3 Whether the statutory presumption under section 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applied to establish trafficking by the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it relied solely on the testimony of SP3, whose testimony contained material inconsistencies and omissions (motorcycle key/vehicle not recorded or seized; conflicting police reports concerning urine test; unexplained variances about injuries) and was unsupported by corroboration from other raiding team members; accordingly the presumption under section 37(da) could not be invoked and the accused was acquitted under section 180(2) CPC.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged; not called to make his defence

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged under section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code dated 28 September 2021