ARPAISAN BIN ARFA

ARPAISAN BIN ARFA

Prosecution failed to prove the essential precondition that the accused was arrested (actual or constructive) prior to the urine test as required by s31A DDA; because this foundational fact was not established and reasonable inferences favoured the accused, the court found no prima facie case and discharged the accused at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
AG-82D-1-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Defendant: Arpaisan bin Arfa
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 November 2025
Case Number
AG-82D-1-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Consumption of Dangerous Drugs (dangerous Drugs Act 1952 S15(1)(a)) / Discharge at Close of Prosecution Case (no Prima Facie Case)
Outcome
Accused discharged and freed at close of prosecution case; no call to defence
Legal Topics
Prima Facie Burden, Section 31 a Compliance, Presumption Under S37(k) DDA, Chain of Custody, Admissibility of Evidence, Expert Forensic Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs/narcotics Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Prima Facie Burden Section 31 a Compliance Presumption Under S37(k) DDA Chain of Custody +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Arpaisan bin Arfa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Consumption of Dangerous Drugs (dangerous Drugs Act 1952 S15(1)(a)) / Discharge at Close of Prosecution Case (no Prima Facie Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had been arrested (actual or constructive) before the urine test as required by s31A DDA
  2. 2 Whether the urine specimen was taken by an authorised police officer of rank not lower than Sergeant
  3. 3 Whether the specimen was analysed by a government appointed scientific officer

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove the essential precondition that the accused was arrested (actual or constructive) prior to the urine test as required by s31A DDA; because this foundational fact was not established and reasonable inferences favoured the accused, the court found no prima facie case and discharged the accused at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and freed at close of prosecution case; no call to defence

Orders

  • Accused Arpaisan bin Arfa discharged and released
  • Bail/security returned in full to the surety