ABD SAMAT BIN TOMPANG

ABD SAMAT BIN TOMPANG

The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of possession (exclusive custody/control and knowledge) because the drugs were found in an unlocked bedroom accessible to others, independent investigation was lacking (investigating officer did not visit the scene) and no evidence excluded access by other persons; consequently there was no prima facie case and the accused could not safely be called to answer.

Citation
NG-83D-73-08/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Abd Samat bin Tompang
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 February 2023
Case Number
NG-83D-73-08/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Decision at Close of Prosecution (no Prima Facie Case Found)
Outcome
Charge under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 dismissed; accused discharged and acquitted (no call to defence)
Legal Topics
Possession, Prima Facie Case, Exclusive Access, Investigating Officer Duty, Statutory Presumption S37(d) DDA, Chain of Custody
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Possession Prima Facie Case Exclusive Access Investigating Officer Duty +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Abd Samat bin Tompang

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Decision at Close of Prosecution (no Prima Facie Case Found)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession (ownership, control and knowledge) of 13.74g methamphetamine
  2. 2 Whether a prima facie case was established to call accused to answer
  3. 3 Whether prosecution could rely on s.37(d) presumption absent proof of exclusive control/access

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of possession (exclusive custody/control and knowledge) because the drugs were found in an unlocked bedroom accessible to others, independent investigation was lacking (investigating officer did not visit the scene) and no evidence excluded access by other persons; consequently there was no prima facie case and the accused could not safely be called to answer.

Court Disposition

Charge under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 dismissed; accused discharged and acquitted (no call to defence)

Orders

  • Accused released and discharged from the charge under Section 12(2) DDA 1952
  • Deposit of RM5000 bail to be returned to the accused