PENDAKWARAYA 1. EDDI BIN MD KASIM 2. NURUL IMAZATUL NADIA BINTI REJAB

PENDAKWARAYA 1. EDDI BIN MD KASIM 2. NURUL IMAZATUL NADIA BINTI REJAB

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie possession for Charges 1 and 2 because it did not exclude access by other persons to the places where drugs were concealed, failed to investigate credible Alcontara notice identifying ‘Musyady’ and significant unknown male DNA existed; therefore accuseds were discharged and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PA-45A-8-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR; First Accused: EDDI BIN MD KASIM; Second Accused: NURUL IMAZATUL NADIA BINTI REJAB
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 May 2020
Case Number
PA-45A-8-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / End of Prosecution Case; Plea and Sentencing
Outcome
First and Second Charges: both accused discharged and acquitted. Third Charge: First Accused convicted under s12(2) DDA (punishable under s39A(2)); Second Accused acquitted.
Legal Topics
Possession of Drugs, Trafficking Presumptions, Common Intention (s34 Penal Code), Alcontara Notice and Investigative Duty, DNA and Forensic Evidence, Search and Seizure, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession of Drugs Trafficking Presumptions Common Intention (s34 Penal Code) Alcontara Notice and Investigative Duty +3 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 7 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Prosecution

EDDI BIN MD KASIM

First Accused

NURUL IMAZATUL NADIA BINTI REJAB

Second Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / End of Prosecution Case; Plea and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved custody, control and knowledge (possession) of drugs for Charges 1 and 2
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(iiia) DDA applied
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved possession for Charge 3 (methamphetamine)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie possession for Charges 1 and 2 because it did not exclude access by other persons to the places where drugs were concealed, failed to investigate credible Alcontara notice identifying ‘Musyady’ and significant unknown male DNA existed; therefore accuseds were discharged and acquitted on Charges 1 and 2. For Charge 3 the court found the first accused was in immediate proximity to drugs found in the sink of the third-room toilet, possession and knowledge were established, he pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced; the second accused was not shown to have possession or common intention and was acquitted on Charge 3.

Court Disposition

First and Second Charges: both accused discharged and acquitted. Third Charge: First Accused convicted under s12(2) DDA (punishable under s39A(2)); Second Accused acquitted.

Orders

  • First and Second Accused discharged and acquitted on Charge 1 (s39B(1)(a) DDA read with s34 Penal Code) and Charge 2 (s39B(1)(a) DDA read with s34 Penal Code)
  • First Accused convicted on Charge 3 (s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with s39A(2) DDA) after plea of guilty