[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMAD SHAHRUL NAIM BIN MOHAMAD ZAIN 2. ) HASHIM TENDOT BIN ABDULLAH

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMAD SHAHRUL NAIM BIN MOHAMAD ZAIN 2. ) HASHIM TENDOT BIN ABDULLAH

On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material gaps and reasonable doubts existed regarding exclusive possession and knowledge (presence of third party Najib, failure to call housing agent Main Uddin, reliance on out-of-court statement P25), chain of custody and timeline inconsistencies; therefore accused were acquitted and discharged under s180(2) CPC.

Citation
WA-45A-70-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; First Accused: Muhamad Shahrul Naim Mohamad Zain; Second Accused: Hashim Tendot B. Abdullah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 August 2025
Case Number
WA-45A-70-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Post Prosecution Prima Facie Evaluation; Acquittal Under Section 180(2) CPC
Outcome
Both accused acquitted and discharged under section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Possession and Knowledge, Prima Facie Standard, Hearsay and Admissibility, Adverse Inference, Common Intention
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Drug Trafficking Possession and Knowledge Prima Facie Standard Hearsay and Admissibility Adverse Inference +1 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Muhamad Shahrul Naim Mohamad Zain

First Accused

Hashim Tendot B. Abdullah

Second Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Post Prosecution Prima Facie Evaluation; Acquittal Under Section 180(2) CPC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with s34 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether accused had possession and knowledge of the drugs seized
  3. 3 Whether presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(xvi) DDA applies

Ratio Decidendi

On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material gaps and reasonable doubts existed regarding exclusive possession and knowledge (presence of third party Najib, failure to call housing agent Main Uddin, reliance on out-of-court statement P25), chain of custody and timeline inconsistencies; therefore accused were acquitted and discharged under s180(2) CPC.

Court Disposition

Both accused acquitted and discharged under section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code

Orders

  • Muhamad Shahrul Naim Mohamad Zain acquitted and discharged of the charge
  • Hashim Tendot B. Abdullah acquitted and discharged of the charge