MUHAMMAD NASIR BIN MOHAMMED NOOR

MUHAMMAD NASIR BIN MOHAMMED NOOR

The prosecution proved identity and net weight of the cannabis (9,773.10 g) by unchallenged chemist evidence and maintained chain of custody; accused had custody and control of the vehicle and sack and knowledge was inferred from smell, proximity and conduct; accused failed to provide particulars or credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under s.37(da)(vi) on balance of probabilities; therefore conviction under s.39B(1)(a) was justified. On sentencing, the accused's assistance to law enforcement leading to major seizures satisfied s.39B(2A)(d) and the court exercised discretion to impose life imprisonment rather than death; whipping was spared under s.289(c) CPC.

Citation
PA-45A-9-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Muhammad Nasir bin Mohammed Noor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 April 2023
Case Number
PA-45A-9-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment and Sentencing (trial Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced to life imprisonment; whipping spared under section 289(c) CPC; appeal filed.
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Presumption of Trafficking (s.37), Burden of Proof, Sentencing Under S.39 B, Chain of Custody
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Trafficking Possession Presumption of Trafficking (s.37) Burden of Proof Sentencing Under S.39 B +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 6 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Muhammad Nasir bin Mohammed Noor

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment and Sentencing (trial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved possession and knowledge of the cannabis
  2. 2 Whether the statutory presumption under s.37(da)(vi) applied and was rebutted
  3. 3 Whether s.39B(2A) justified imposition of life imprisonment instead of death

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution proved identity and net weight of the cannabis (9,773.10 g) by unchallenged chemist evidence and maintained chain of custody; accused had custody and control of the vehicle and sack and knowledge was inferred from smell, proximity and conduct; accused failed to provide particulars or credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under s.37(da)(vi) on balance of probabilities; therefore conviction under s.39B(1)(a) was justified. On sentencing, the accused's assistance to law enforcement leading to major seizures satisfied s.39B(2A)(d) and the court exercised discretion to impose life imprisonment rather than death; whipping was spared under s.289(c) CPC.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced to life imprisonment; whipping spared under section 289(c) CPC; appeal filed.

Orders

  • Notice of Appeal dated 13 April 2023 noted