[ ] AZIZAN BIN ABD RAHMAN

[ ] AZIZAN BIN ABD RAHMAN

The court found prosecution proved possession beyond reasonable doubt: the accused was alone with exclusive control of the premises where drugs and paraphernalia were in plain view; the defence was an uncorroborated bare denial and failed to call alleged third parties, and wilful blindness applied; therefore conviction under Section 12(2) ADB 1952 is justified and the custodial sentence is appropriate.

Citation
DA-82D-14-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Defendant: AZIZAN BIN ABD RAHMAN
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Case Number
DA-82D-14-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Possession of Controlled Substance, Wilful Blindness, Burden of Proof, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Possession of Controlled Substance Wilful Blindness Burden of Proof Sentencing

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

AZIZAN BIN ABD RAHMAN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had knowledge and possession of methamphetamine found in his residence
  2. 2 Whether the defence of bare denial and assertion of third-party access created a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether doctrine of wilful blindness applies to impute knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

The court found prosecution proved possession beyond reasonable doubt: the accused was alone with exclusive control of the premises where drugs and paraphernalia were in plain view; the defence was an uncorroborated bare denial and failed to call alleged third parties, and wilful blindness applied; therefore conviction under Section 12(2) ADB 1952 is justified and the custodial sentence is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convicted under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (as amended)