CHE KU SAHABUDIN BIN CHE KU MAN

CHE KU SAHABUDIN BIN CHE KU MAN

Appellate court held the trial judge erred by re‑opening and revisiting prima facie findings at the defence stage and by failing to determine whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(xvi) on the balance of probabilities; possession and knowledge were proven by proximity and control of items found, the presumption was not rebutted, therefore convictions under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 were warranted and appropriate sentences (life imprisonment and 12 strokes for the two trafficking counts) were imposed; conviction and sentence on the poisons charge were upheld.

Citation
T-05(LB)-587-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Accused/appellant: Che Ku Sahabudin bin Che Ku Man; Prosecution/respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
LB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 October 2025
Case Number
T-05(LB)-587-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposition on Appeals)
Outcome
Prosecution appeals allowed in relation to Pertuduhan Pertama and Kedua; accused's appeal dismissed in relation to Pertuduhan Ketiga; convictions entered/upheld
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking Presumption, Burden of Proof, Evaluation of Defence, Search and Seizure, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Presumption Burden of Proof Evaluation of Defence Search and Seizure +1 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Che Ku Sahabudin bin Che Ku Man

Accused/appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposition on Appeals)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession and knowledge of drugs beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether presumption under s37(da)(xvi) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was properly applied and rebutted
  3. 3 Whether trial judge erred by revisiting prosecution's findings at defence stage and by failing to assess rebuttal on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Appellate court held the trial judge erred by re‑opening and revisiting prima facie findings at the defence stage and by failing to determine whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(xvi) on the balance of probabilities; possession and knowledge were proven by proximity and control of items found, the presumption was not rebutted, therefore convictions under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 were warranted and appropriate sentences (life imprisonment and 12 strokes for the two trafficking counts) were imposed; conviction and sentence on the poisons charge were upheld.

Court Disposition

Prosecution appeals allowed in relation to Pertuduhan Pertama and Kedua; accused's appeal dismissed in relation to Pertuduhan Ketiga; convictions entered/upheld

Orders

  • Allow prosecution appeals against trial court's acquittal on Pertuduhan Pertama and substitution of conviction for alleged offence under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; convict accused accordingly
  • Allow prosecution appeal and restore original charge under Pertuduhan Kedua as s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; convict accused accordingly