NG HAW WEN

NG HAW WEN

The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs; critical gaps included failure to call the registered owner/tenant and to produce the alleged keys as exhibits, unreliable identification by the security guard, and inadequate investigation; consequently no prima facie case under section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was established and the accused was discharged under section 180(2) CPC.

Citation
BA-45A-114-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendaakwa Raya; Accused: Ng Haw Wen
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 September 2024
Case Number
BA-45A-114-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Drug Trafficking (section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Close of Prosecution Case; Court Discharged Accused Under Section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code (no Prima Facie Case)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; no prima facie case made out under section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; discharged under section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Burden of Proof, Search and Seizure, Chain of Custody, Relevancy of Confession (s27 Evidence Act 1950), Admissibility (s8, S9 Evidence Act 1950)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Burden of Proof Search and Seizure Chain of Custody +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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendaakwa Raya

Prosecution

Ng Haw Wen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial Drug Trafficking (section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Close of Prosecution Case; Court Discharged Accused Under Section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code (no Prima Facie Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized substances were identified as dangerous drugs
  2. 2 Whether the accused had possession, control or custody of the seized drugs
  3. 3 Whether the accused had knowledge of the drugs

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs; critical gaps included failure to call the registered owner/tenant and to produce the alleged keys as exhibits, unreliable identification by the security guard, and inadequate investigation; consequently no prima facie case under section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was established and the accused was discharged under section 180(2) CPC.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; no prima facie case made out under section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; discharged under section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code

Orders

  • Accused NG Haw Wen is discharged and acquitted of all charges under section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 pursuant to section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code