[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MOHAMAD SUFIAN BIN SAHBUDIN 2. ) MOHD NIZAM BIN POIMAN

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MOHAMAD SUFIAN BIN SAHBUDIN 2. ) MOHD NIZAM BIN POIMAN

For charges where drugs were found in an exposed motorcycle basket, the prosecution failed to prove prima facie that OKT1 or OKT2 had possession, knowledge and control because there was no evidence excluding third‑party access, no chain of custody or source of the motorcycle was established and no direct link to either accused; thus no prima facie case for those charges. However, for the amended charge in CB-45-10-04/2023 (1.01g methamphetamine) the prosecution did establish a prima facie case against OKT1 and OKT1 was ordered to be called to enter his defence.

Citation
CB-45-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohamad Sufian bin Sahbudin; Accused: Mohd Nizam bin Poiman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 October 2025
Case Number
CB-45-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences / End of Prosecution Case Ruling on Whether Prima Facie Established
Outcome
OKT1 was ordered called to enter defence on the amended charge CB-45-10-04/2023 under section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 12(3); OKT1 and OKT2 were acquitted and discharged without being called to defend on all other counts (CB-45A-7-04/2023, CB-45-8-04/2023 and CB-45-9-04/2023).
Legal Topics
Possession, Knowledge and Control, Prima Facie Threshold, Chain of Custody, Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 30(5) Poison Act 1952, Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Calling Accused to Defence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics/drugs Law Evidence Law Possession Knowledge and Control Prima Facie Threshold Chain of Custody Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohamad Sufian bin Sahbudin

Accused

Mohd Nizam bin Poiman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences / End of Prosecution Case Ruling on Whether Prima Facie Established

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seized substances are controlled drugs
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved possession/knowledge/control by each accused
  3. 3 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case at the close of its case

Ratio Decidendi

For charges where drugs were found in an exposed motorcycle basket, the prosecution failed to prove prima facie that OKT1 or OKT2 had possession, knowledge and control because there was no evidence excluding third‑party access, no chain of custody or source of the motorcycle was established and no direct link to either accused; thus no prima facie case for those charges. However, for the amended charge in CB-45-10-04/2023 (1.01g methamphetamine) the prosecution did establish a prima facie case against OKT1 and OKT1 was ordered to be called to enter his defence.

Court Disposition

OKT1 was ordered called to enter defence on the amended charge CB-45-10-04/2023 under section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 12(3); OKT1 and OKT2 were acquitted and discharged without being called to defend on all other counts (CB-45A-7-04/2023, CB-45-8-04/2023 and CB-45-9-04/2023).

Orders

  • OKT1 to be called to enter defence for charge CB-45-10-04/2023 (section 12(2) ADB 1952 read with section 12(3))
  • OKT1 and OKT2 are acquitted and discharged of all charges in CB-45A-7-04/2023, CB-45-8-04/2023 (first, second and third counts) and CB-45-9-04/2023 without being called to defend