1. ) MUHAMMAD ABRAR 2. ) BADIUZZAMAN 3. ) NAIMAH BINTI MD AMIN 4. ) MOH YUSUF BIN HASBALLA

1. ) MUHAMMAD ABRAR 2. ) BADIUZZAMAN 3. ) NAIMAH BINTI MD AMIN 4. ) MOH YUSUF BIN HASBALLA

Court found seized cigarettes were prohibited imports but prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession or control by OKT3 and OKT4; because possession was not established the statutory presumption in s135(2) could not be invoked; multiple reasonable inferences favoured the accused; therefore no prima facie case...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JI-83-86-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Jabatan Kastam DiRaja Malaysia; Defendant: Muhammad Abrar; Defendant: Badiuzzaman; Defendant: Naimah binti Md Amin; Defendant: Moh Yusuf bin Hasballa
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 December 2022
Case Number
JI-83-86-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Customs Offence / Post Prosecution Judgment (no Prima Facie Case)
Outcome
OKT 3 and OKT 4 discharged and acquitted; no prima facie case. OKT 1's earlier conviction was set aside by the High Court and the prosecution subsequently withdrew the charge resulting in release without acquittal. Warrant issued for OKT 2 remained unexecuted.
Legal Topics
Possession, Presumption of Knowledge, Section 135 Customs Act 1967, No Case to Answer, Prima Facie
Customs Criminal Law Evidence Possession Presumption of Knowledge Section 135 Customs Act 1967 No Case to Answer Prima Facie

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jabatan Kastam DiRaja Malaysia

Prosecutor

Muhammad Abrar

Defendant

Badiuzzaman

Defendant

Naimah binti Md Amin

Defendant

Moh Yusuf bin Hasballa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Customs Offence / Post Prosecution Judgment (no Prima Facie Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized cigarettes constituted prohibited imports under the Customs (Prohibition on Import) Order 2017
  2. 2 Whether OKT 3 and OKT 4 had possession and knowledge of the prohibited goods
  3. 3 Whether the presumption under section 135(2) Customs Act 1967 is applicable

Ratio Decidendi

Court found seized cigarettes were prohibited imports but prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession or control by OKT3 and OKT4; because possession was not established the statutory presumption in s135(2) could not be invoked; multiple reasonable inferences favoured the accused; therefore no prima facie case existed and OKT3 and OKT4 must be discharged and acquitted.

Court Disposition

OKT 3 and OKT 4 discharged and acquitted; no prima facie case. OKT 1's earlier conviction was set aside by the High Court and the prosecution subsequently withdrew the charge resulting in release without acquittal. Warrant issued for OKT 2 remained unexecuted.

Orders

  • OKT 3 (Naimah binti Md Amin) and OKT 4 (Moh Yusuf bin Hasballa) are discharged and acquitted of the amended charge and are not called to enter defence
  • Record that seized cigarettes are classified as prohibited imports under Perintah Kastam (Larangan Mengenai Import) 2017 [P.U.(A) 103/2017]