[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material gaps and weaknesses in chain of custody and exhibit identification (no marking at scene, no seizure form completed at scene, multiple contemporaneous arrests/rampasan under same team) permitted a reasonable inference that the exhibits analysed were not necessarily those seized from the accused; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to defend and they must be discharged and acquitted.

Citation
CB-83D-1910-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Kamarudin bin Abdullah; Accused: Nik Zaidah binti Nik Long
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 November 2025
Case Number
CB-83D-1910-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences / End of Prosecution Case (decision on Prima Facie / Not Called to Enter Defence)
Outcome
Accused discharged and freed; not called to enter defence; bail returned.
Legal Topics
Possession of Controlled Substances, Prima Facie Burden, Chain of Custody, Marking of Exhibits, Discharge Not Called to Defend
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Possession of Controlled Substances Prima Facie Burden Chain of Custody Marking of Exhibits +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Kamarudin bin Abdullah

Accused

Nik Zaidah binti Nik Long

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences / End of Prosecution Case (decision on Prima Facie / Not Called to Enter Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused
  2. 2 Whether the seized drugs were proved to be in the possession of the accused
  3. 3 Whether chain of custody and marking procedures were sufficiently complied with to connect exhibits to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material gaps and weaknesses in chain of custody and exhibit identification (no marking at scene, no seizure form completed at scene, multiple contemporaneous arrests/rampasan under same team) permitted a reasonable inference that the exhibits analysed were not necessarily those seized from the accused; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to defend and they must be discharged and acquitted.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and freed; not called to enter defence; bail returned.

Orders

  • Accused discharged and released without being called to enter defence
  • Bail money returned to accused