[TIMBALAN ] MOHD RONI BIN AYOB

[TIMBALAN ] MOHD RONI BIN AYOB

Prosecution's appeal at the end of the prosecution case was competent in the circumstances described; the court found a prima facie case under s.12(2) ADB (call to defend) based on direct evidence of possession and reliable lab results but declined to convict or apply the trafficking charge under s.39B(1)(a) because the statutory presumption under s.37(da)(iiia) was not available—possession was not proven to the exclusion of others given the demonstrated existence of an alternative individual ('Usop'/'Yusof'); accordingly the accused was discharged from the original s.39B(1)(a) charge and called to defend on s.12(2) charges, and the accused's cross‑appeal was incompetent at this stage.

Citation
CA-45A-5-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Roni bin Ayob
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 May 2024
Case Number
CA-45A-5-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (drug Offences) / End of Prosecution Case (prima Facie Decision)
Outcome
Appeal by Prosecution allowed in part. Accused discharged from original trafficking charge under s.39B(1)(a) ADB and called to defend on amended/alternative charges under s.12(2) ADB (punishable under s.39A(2) or s.12(3) as applicable). Accused's cross‑appeal dismissed as incompetent at this stage.
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Statutory Presumption, Prima Facie, Appealability of Interlocutory Decisions, Burden of Proof
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Procedure Possession Trafficking Statutory Presumption Prima Facie +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohd Roni bin Ayob

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (drug Offences) / End of Prosecution Case (prima Facie Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution may appeal against a decision made at the end of the prosecution case
  2. 2 Whether a prima facie case for trafficking under s.39B ADB was established
  3. 3 Whether possession was proven to the exclusion of others to attract the presumption under s.37(da)(iiia) ADB

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution's appeal at the end of the prosecution case was competent in the circumstances described; the court found a prima facie case under s.12(2) ADB (call to defend) based on direct evidence of possession and reliable lab results but declined to convict or apply the trafficking charge under s.39B(1)(a) because the statutory presumption under s.37(da)(iiia) was not available—possession was not proven to the exclusion of others given the demonstrated existence of an alternative individual ('Usop'/'Yusof'); accordingly the accused was discharged from the original s.39B(1)(a) charge and called to defend on s.12(2) charges, and the accused's cross‑appeal was incompetent at this stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Prosecution allowed in part. Accused discharged from original trafficking charge under s.39B(1)(a) ADB and called to defend on amended/alternative charges under s.12(2) ADB (punishable under s.39A(2) or s.12(3) as applicable). Accused's cross‑appeal dismissed as incompetent at this stage.

Orders

  • CA-45A-5-09/2020: Accused discharged and released from the original charge under s.39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; accused is called to enter defence on the amended charge under s.12(2) ADB punishable under s.39A(2).
  • CA-45-4-09/2020: Accused is called to enter defence on both charges under s.12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 punishable under s.12(3).