MOHAMAD HAFIZ BIN MOHAMAD

MOHAMAD HAFIZ BIN MOHAMAD

High Court order to call defence stood; at end of defence the accused's uncorroborated denial and failure to call the co-occupant or make a police report did not raise a reasonable doubt. Prosecution evidence including SP1's testimony, Exhibit P1 signature and seizure particulars proved possession of methamphetamine...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JA-83D-2855-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Mohamad Hafiz bin Mohamad
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 June 2025
Case Number
JA-83D-2855-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Trial Judgment and Sentencing After Full Trial and High Court Order to Call Defence (conviction and Sentencing)
Outcome
Accused found guilty and convicted under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with Section 39A(1).
Legal Topics
Possession of Controlled Drugs, Burden of Proof, Reasonable Doubt, Chain of Custody/identification of Exhibits, Mitigation
Criminal Law Drugs and Controlled Substances Evidence Law Sentencing Possession of Controlled Drugs Burden of Proof Reasonable Doubt Chain of Custody/identification of Exhibits +1 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohamad Hafiz bin Mohamad

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Trial Judgment and Sentencing After Full Trial and High Court Order to Call Defence (conviction and Sentencing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession of methamphetamine beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the defence raised a reasonable doubt by alleging the seized items belonged to a third party (Siti Nuratika)
  3. 3 Whether absence of marks/tags on seized packets and failure to call the third party witness undermined defence

Ratio Decidendi

High Court order to call defence stood; at end of defence the accused's uncorroborated denial and failure to call the co-occupant or make a police report did not raise a reasonable doubt. Prosecution evidence including SP1's testimony, Exhibit P1 signature and seizure particulars proved possession of methamphetamine beyond reasonable doubt. Accused convicted under Section 12(2) ADB read with Section 39A(1) and sentenced accordingly.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty and convicted under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with Section 39A(1).

Orders

  • Sentence: 3 years' imprisonment commencing from date of conviction (18.8.2025)
  • Corporal punishment: three (3) strokes of the cane