MUHAMAD ZULFAKAR BIN RAZALI

MUHAMAD ZULFAKAR BIN RAZALI

Prosecution failed to prove exclusive custody/control and failed to maintain an unbroken chain of custody because (i) witnesses established third‑party access to the refrigerator and prosecution did not exclude that possibility or call those persons, and (ii) there was a material unexplained discrepancy between seized volume (200 ml) and analysed volume (375 ml). Those failures defeated a prima facie case and required discharge of the accused at the close of the prosecution's case.

Citation
TA-82D-9-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Muhamad Zulfakar bin Razali
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 July 2022
Case Number
TA-82D-9-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence (poisons Act 1952) / Post Prosecution: Decision on Prima Facie Case (accused Discharged)
Outcome
Accused discharged and freed at close of prosecution's case; no need to call defence
Legal Topics
Possession/control, Prima Facie Burden, Chain of Custody, Suppression of Evidence (s114(g) Evidence Act 1950), Admissibility of Chemist Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs/poisons Law Evidence Law Possession/control Prima Facie Burden Chain of Custody Suppression of Evidence (s114(g) Evidence Act 1950) Admissibility of Chemist 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Muhamad Zulfakar bin Razali

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence (poisons Act 1952) / Post Prosecution: Decision on Prima Facie Case (accused Discharged)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized liquid contained Mitragynine (identity of exhibit)
  2. 2 Whether the accused had custody, control or possession of the seized Mitragynine
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution excluded access by others to the location of seizure

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove exclusive custody/control and failed to maintain an unbroken chain of custody because (i) witnesses established third‑party access to the refrigerator and prosecution did not exclude that possibility or call those persons, and (ii) there was a material unexplained discrepancy between seized volume (200 ml) and analysed volume (375 ml). Those failures defeated a prima facie case and required discharge of the accused at the close of the prosecution's case.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and freed at close of prosecution's case; no need to call defence

Orders

  • Accused is discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution's case; no requirement to enter defence