DAUD BIN ABDULLAH SANI

DAUD BIN ABDULLAH SANI

Having proven that the seized cigarettes were prohibited imports and that the defendant, as lawful tenant present and in control of the single‑access premises, had possession and knowledge (via the rebuttable presumption under s135(2)), and because the defendant failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities, the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the defendant is guilty under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967.

Citation
AB-83-21-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Daud bin Abdullah Sani
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 November 2025
Case Number
AB-83-21-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Customs (possession of Prohibited Imports) / Judgment and Sentencing After Full Trial
Outcome
Convicted of offence under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967
Legal Topics
Possession, Prohibited Imports, Presumptions of Knowledge Under S135(2), Burden of Proof, Forfeiture of Seized Goods, Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Source Language
Malay/English
Customs Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Forfeiture and Confiscation Possession Prohibited Imports Presumptions of Knowledge Under S135(2) Burden of Proof +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Daud bin Abdullah Sani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Customs (possession of Prohibited Imports) / Judgment and Sentencing After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seized cigarettes were prohibited imports under the Customs import prohibition order
  2. 2 Whether defendant had possession and control of the seized goods
  3. 3 Whether defendant knew the goods were prohibited imports (application of presumption under s135(2) Customs Act 1967)

Ratio Decidendi

Having proven that the seized cigarettes were prohibited imports and that the defendant, as lawful tenant present and in control of the single‑access premises, had possession and knowledge (via the rebuttable presumption under s135(2)), and because the defendant failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities, the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the defendant is guilty under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967.

Court Disposition

Convicted of offence under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967

Orders

  • Two (2) years imprisonment commencing 24/11/2025.
  • Under s119A Customs Act 1967 defendant ordered to pay import duty of RM3,296.00 to the Director General of Customs; failure to pay converts to 5 months imprisonment under s283(1)(b)(iv) Criminal Procedure Code.