MOHD AMIRUL AMRIE BIN MOHD ZIMI

MOHD AMIRUL AMRIE BIN MOHD ZIMI

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 because it did not prove the identity and continuity of the exhibit from seizure to chemist without gaps and failed to prove possession (control and knowledge). The non-production/non-offering of material witnesses (Sjn Aziz and Lans Kpl Syakir), who were in prosecution's control and could explain critical aspects, created a substantial gap and attracted an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act; accordingly no prima facie case was made out and the accused was acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
AC-82D-6-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Mohd Amirul Amrie bin Mohd Zimi
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 November 2023
Case Number
AC-82D-6-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (possession) / Decision at Close of Prosecution Case (s.180 CPC / S.173 Cpc)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution case (no call to enter defence); case dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession, Chain of Custody, Prima Facie Test, Adverse Inference S.114(g) Evidence Act, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession Chain of Custody Prima Facie Test Adverse Inference S.114(g) Evidence Act +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Mohd Amirul Amrie bin Mohd Zimi

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (possession) / Decision at Close of Prosecution Case (s.180 CPC / S.173 Cpc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under s.6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  2. 2 Whether the seized substance was proved to be the same exhibit analysed by the chemist (chain of custody)
  3. 3 Whether the cannabis was in the accused's possession (control and knowledge)

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 because it did not prove the identity and continuity of the exhibit from seizure to chemist without gaps and failed to prove possession (control and knowledge). The non-production/non-offering of material witnesses (Sjn Aziz and Lans Kpl Syakir), who were in prosecution's control and could explain critical aspects, created a substantial gap and attracted an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act; accordingly no prima facie case was made out and the accused was acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution case (no call to enter defence); case dismissed

Orders

  • Accused is acquitted and discharged of the charge under s.6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Exhibit declared TPR 'lupus' and subject to appeal