[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOKTHAR BIN SAMOH

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOKTHAR BIN SAMOH

Although chemical analysis established the items were dangerous drugs, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had possession, control and knowledge because the stor was under the house owner's control, accessible to others, contained belongings of others, the accused was present only to rest and lacked exclusive control or keys; in those circumstances proximity alone did not establish possession or trigger the s.37(da) presumption and the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case, so the accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Citation
CB-45A-6-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Mokthar bin Samoh
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Case Number
CB-45A-6-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences (dangerous Drugs Act 1952; Poisons Act) / Close of Prosecution Case; Court Found No Prima Facie Case and Acquitted Without Calling Defence
Outcome
Accused acquitted and released; prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case
Legal Topics
Possession of Controlled Drugs, Trafficking Presumptions (s.37(da)), Prima Facie Standard (s.180(4) Cpc), Chain of Custody, Fingerprint and DNA Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Possession of Controlled Drugs Trafficking Presumptions (s.37(da)) Prima Facie Standard (s.180(4) Cpc) Chain of Custody Fingerprint and DNA Evidence

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mokthar bin Samoh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences (dangerous Drugs Act 1952; Poisons Act) / Close of Prosecution Case; Court Found No Prima Facie Case and Acquitted Without Calling Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized substances qualified as dangerous drugs
  2. 2 Whether the accused had possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs
  3. 3 Whether the statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) applied

Ratio Decidendi

Although chemical analysis established the items were dangerous drugs, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had possession, control and knowledge because the stor was under the house owner's control, accessible to others, contained belongings of others, the accused was present only to rest and lacked exclusive control or keys; in those circumstances proximity alone did not establish possession or trigger the s.37(da) presumption and the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case, so the accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and released; prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and released from all charges without being called to enter defence