MOHD KHAIRUL BIN ABDULLAH

MOHD KHAIRUL BIN ABDULLAH

Chemist evidence established THC in the plant and police evidence established seizure and chain of custody; eyewitness evidence proved accused had custody and control of the plant in a receptacle in his apartment; therefore s6B(4) presumption that possessor planted the plant applied and accused failed to rebut it on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JA-62D-131-08/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Khairul bin Abdullah; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 May 2023
Case Number
JA-62D-131-08/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Trial Judgment and Sentencing (sessions Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted
Legal Topics
Possession, Cultivation/planting, Chain of Custody, Legal Presumptions, Expert Evidence, Sentencing, Application for Bond
Criminal Law Dangerous Drugs Law Evidence Law Procedure Possession Cultivation/planting Chain of Custody Legal Presumptions +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Khairul bin Abdullah

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Trial Judgment and Sentencing (sessions Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized plant contained tetrahydrocannabinols (THC)
  2. 2 Whether the plant analysed by chemist was the same plant seized (chain of custody)
  3. 3 Whether the accused was in possession of the plant

Ratio Decidendi

Chemist evidence established THC in the plant and police evidence established seizure and chain of custody; eyewitness evidence proved accused had custody and control of the plant in a receptacle in his apartment; therefore s6B(4) presumption that possessor planted the plant applied and accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; prosecution proved all ingredients beyond reasonable doubt and conviction under s6B(1)(a) followed with mandatory sentencing under s6B(3).

Court Disposition

Accused convicted

Orders

  • Convicted of planting a cannabis plant contrary to section 6B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Sentence: imprisonment for life