MOHD JURIB BIN MOHAMAD NAIB [ ]

MOHD JURIB BIN MOHAMAD NAIB [ ]

The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had exclusive possession, custody and control of the vehicle and the drugs therein, supported by concealment in multiple compartments, forensic/DNA linkage, ownership/use evidence and evasive conduct; therefore the inference of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
K-05(H)-299-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Jurib bin Mohamad Naib; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
H
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 October 2025
Case Number
K-05(H)-299-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the High Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Chain of Custody, DNA Evidence, Burden of Proof, Tip Off Cases
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Chain of Custody DNA Evidence Burden of Proof +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Jurib bin Mohamad Naib

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved custody, control and knowledge of the drugs
  2. 2 Whether trafficking was established by transportation under the DDA
  3. 3 Whether the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof in a tip-off case

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had exclusive possession, custody and control of the vehicle and the drugs therein, supported by concealment in multiple compartments, forensic/DNA linkage, ownership/use evidence and evasive conduct; therefore the inference of knowledge and trafficking by transportation under the DDA was properly drawn and the belated third‑party defence was implausible and insufficient to raise reasonable doubt, so there was no misdirection on burden and the conviction was safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the High Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence affirmed