MOHAMAD ARIFFUDIN BIN MOHAMAD ZULKIFLI

MOHAMAD ARIFFUDIN BIN MOHAMAD ZULKIFLI

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized substance was methamphetamine (11.20g) and that the accused had possession and knowledge because the drug was found in his hand and he nodded to admit it; the defence account was a bare denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TC-83D-324-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Timbalan Pendakwaraya, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Terengganu; Accused/appellant: Mohamad Ariffudin bin Mohamad Zulkifli
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 April 2023
Case Number
TC-83D-324-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Possession of Dangerous Drugs, Knowledge Element, Statutory Presumptions (s37(d)), Chemist Evidence, Burden of Proof, Sentencing Principles, Section 12(2) DDA, Section 39 A(1) DDA
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Sentencing Possession of Dangerous Drugs Knowledge Element Statutory Presumptions (s37(d)) Chemist Evidence +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timbalan Pendakwaraya, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Terengganu

Prosecutor

Mohamad Ariffudin bin Mohamad Zulkifli

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved physical possession of methamphetamine beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the accused had knowledge of the drug
  3. 3 Whether the statutory presumption under s37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applied

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized substance was methamphetamine (11.20g) and that the accused had possession and knowledge because the drug was found in his hand and he nodded to admit it; the defence account was a bare denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt; accordingly conviction under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was upheld and the sentence of 30 months imprisonment and three strokes of the cane was appropriate and confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Sentence of 30 months imprisonment from date of conviction and three strokes of the cane