1. ) MUSA BIN AHMAD 2. ) MOHAMAD ZUKARNAIN BIN MOHD ZAKARIA

1. ) MUSA BIN AHMAD 2. ) MOHAMAD ZUKARNAIN BIN MOHD ZAKARIA

The court held that an appeal against an interlocutory ruling to call the defence is not competent at this stage; on maximum evaluation the prosecution had established a prima facie case of trafficking under s.37(da) given the quantities, proximity of the drugs to both appellants and corroborating indicia (small packets, digital scale, conduct of first appellant), chain of custody was intact and therefore the appellants were called to enter their defence; a charging anomaly regarding splitting of heroin and monoacetylmorphines is curable under s.422 CPC and the second charge may be amended accordingly.

Citation
AB-45A-2-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Appellant: Musa bin Ahmad; Appellant: Mohamad Zukarnain bin Mohd Zakaria
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 July 2024
Case Number
AB-45A-2-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling to Call Defence; Trial to Continue at Defence Stage (defence Case Fixed)
Outcome
Order to call the appellants to enter their defence upheld; interlocutory appeal against that ruling not competent; trial to continue at defence stage.
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Statutory Presumption of Trafficking, Interlocutory Appealability, Chain of Custody, Common Intention
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Trafficking Possession Statutory Presumption of Trafficking Interlocutory Appealability +2 more

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Musa bin Ahmad

Appellant

Mohamad Zukarnain bin Mohd Zakaria

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling to Call Defence; Trial to Continue at Defence Stage (defence Case Fixed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order to call for defence is appealable at interlocutory stage
  2. 2 Whether prosecution adduced a prima facie case of trafficking under s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether appellants had custody or control and knowledge (possession) of the drugs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an appeal against an interlocutory ruling to call the defence is not competent at this stage; on maximum evaluation the prosecution had established a prima facie case of trafficking under s.37(da) given the quantities, proximity of the drugs to both appellants and corroborating indicia (small packets, digital scale, conduct of first appellant), chain of custody was intact and therefore the appellants were called to enter their defence; a charging anomaly regarding splitting of heroin and monoacetylmorphines is curable under s.422 CPC and the second charge may be amended accordingly.

Court Disposition

Order to call the appellants to enter their defence upheld; interlocutory appeal against that ruling not competent; trial to continue at defence stage.

Orders

  • Both appellants are called to enter their defence
  • Trial (defence case) fixed to continue on 4–5 December 2024