[ ] 1. ) AHMAD UZAIR BIN CHE DARUS 2. ) AZILAFATIHA BINTI AHMAD

[ ] 1. ) AHMAD UZAIR BIN CHE DARUS 2. ) AZILAFATIHA BINTI AHMAD

Prosecution failed to prove beyond prima facie standard that the drugs were under the custody, control and possession of either accused or that there was joint intention under s.34. Significant investigative gaps (missing TV, unexplained late discovery of JPJ receipt, no proof of car ownership, no DNA report...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
DA-45A-10-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Ahmad Uzair bin Che Darus; Accused: Azilafatiha binti Ahmad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 July 2022
Case Number
DA-45A-10-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Decision at End of Prosecution Case (no Prima Facie Case; Acquittal)
Outcome
Both accused discharged and acquitted of all charges at end of prosecution case
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Possession, Joint Liability (section 34 Penal Code), Prima Facie Burden, Chain of Custody, Search and Seizure, Presumptions Under S.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Procedure Drug Trafficking Possession Joint Liability (section 34 Penal Code) Prima Facie Burden +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Ahmad Uzair bin Che Darus

Accused

Azilafatiha binti Ahmad

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Decision at End of Prosecution Case (no Prima Facie Case; Acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seized substances were dangerous drugs as listed under the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved custody, control and possession of the drugs by the accused
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved trafficking under s.39B DDA 1952

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove beyond prima facie standard that the drugs were under the custody, control and possession of either accused or that there was joint intention under s.34. Significant investigative gaps (missing TV, unexplained late discovery of JPJ receipt, no proof of car ownership, no DNA report tendered, no proper elimination of third‑party access) created reasonable inferences for alternative access. Without establishing possession the statutory presumptions for trafficking could not be applied; therefore no prima facie case existed and both accused were discharged and acquitted.

Court Disposition

Both accused discharged and acquitted of all charges at end of prosecution case

Orders

  • Both accused are discharged and acquitted of all charges without being called upon to enter their defence