MOHAMAD AZUANDI BIN MAT [ ]

MOHAMAD AZUANDI BIN MAT [ ]

The High Court allowed the appeal because unexplained discrepancy in the identity of the urine sample (difference in number of seals) and non‑compliance with IGSO F103 and KKM Guidelines (which the court held to have force of law) created reasonable doubt; consequently the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
AA-41S(A)-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mohamad Azuandi bin Mat; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 September 2022
Case Number
AA-41S(A)-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Decision on Appeal From Magistrate Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Chain of Custody, Identity of Exhibit, SOP Compliance, Force of Law of Guidelines, Burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Appellate Intervention on Findings of Fact
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Constitutional Law Administrative Law Chain of Custody Identity of Exhibit SOP Compliance +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamad Azuandi bin Mat

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Decision on Appeal From Magistrate Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was reasonable doubt as to the identity of the urine sample (discrepancy in seals)
  2. 2 Whether IGSO F103 and KKM Guidelines Bil 6/2002 have the force of law and whether non‑compliance is fatal to prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because unexplained discrepancy in the identity of the urine sample (difference in number of seals) and non‑compliance with IGSO F103 and KKM Guidelines (which the court held to have force of law) created reasonable doubt; consequently the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence were unsafe and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence set aside
  • Appellant acquitted and discharged from the charge