PENDAKWARAYA MOHAMAD ALRAZIQ BIN RAMLI

PENDAKWARAYA MOHAMAD ALRAZIQ BIN RAMLI

Court held prosecution proved at maximum-evaluation stage that accused had custody and control of the cannabis and, by operation of s37(d), possession and knowledge were deemed; prosecution failed to establish trafficking element under s2 but succeeded to call accused to enter defence on an amended charge under s6 DDA 1952 and, after defence evidence, court convicted on the amended possession offence and sentenced accused to 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes while acquitting him on the s3(1)(a) forfeiture/usage charge.

Citation
WA-45A-20-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohamad AlRaziq bin Ramli
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 October 2021
Case Number
WA-45A-20-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences / Trial (judgment)
Outcome
Convicted on amended charge under section 6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (punishable under s39A(2)); acquitted and discharged on section 3(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Prima Facie Standard, Presumption of Possession (s37(d)), Chain of Custody, Burden of Proof, Search and Seizure, Forensic Evidence, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession Trafficking Prima Facie Standard Presumption of Possession (s37(d)) +5 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Mohamad AlRaziq bin Ramli

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences / Trial (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case under s180 CPC
  2. 2 Whether accused had possession and knowledge of the seized cannabis under s37(d) DDA 1952
  3. 3 Whether elements of trafficking under s2 DDA 1952 were established

Ratio Decidendi

Court held prosecution proved at maximum-evaluation stage that accused had custody and control of the cannabis and, by operation of s37(d), possession and knowledge were deemed; prosecution failed to establish trafficking element under s2 but succeeded to call accused to enter defence on an amended charge under s6 DDA 1952 and, after defence evidence, court convicted on the amended possession offence and sentenced accused to 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes while acquitting him on the s3(1)(a) forfeiture/usage charge.

Court Disposition

Convicted on amended charge under section 6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (punishable under s39A(2)); acquitted and discharged on section 3(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988

Orders

  • Convicted and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment commencing 26 March 2019
  • Ordered to receive ten (10) strokes of the rotan