PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya MUHAMAD SYAHMI BIN ABDULLAH [ No. Kad Pengenalan: 780912-06-5051 ] LAIN-LAIN En. Muhamad Saifuldin bin Ab Rahman (Tetuan Ahmad Rusydi Md Nor & Partners)

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya MUHAMAD SYAHMI BIN ABDULLAH [ No. Kad Pengenalan: 780912-06-5051 ] LAIN-LAIN En. Muhamad Saifuldin bin Ab Rahman (Tetuan Ahmad Rusydi Md Nor & Partners)

The court convicted because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cannabis (0.76g) was in the accused's exclusive possession and contact with his right hand, the accused must have known of its existence and nature, the chain of custody was intact and prosecution witnesses were credible; the defence was a bare denial and afterthought that failed to raise reasonable doubt.

Citation
CA-82D-7-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWARAYA; Accused: MUHAMAD SYAHMI BIN ABDULLAH
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Case Number
CA-82D-7-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Conviction and Sentencing
Outcome
convicted
Legal Topics
Possession of Narcotics, Chain of Custody, Prima Facie, Burden of Proof, Mens Rea, Reasonable Doubt, Sentencing Principles
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession of Narcotics Chain of Custody Prima Facie Burden of Proof +3 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWARAYA

Prosecution

MUHAMAD SYAHMI BIN ABDULLAH

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Conviction and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether accused had possession of the cannabis found
  2. 2 whether accused had knowledge of the drug
  3. 3 whether chain of custody for the exhibit was intact

Ratio Decidendi

The court convicted because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cannabis (0.76g) was in the accused's exclusive possession and contact with his right hand, the accused must have known of its existence and nature, the chain of custody was intact and prosecution witnesses were credible; the defence was a bare denial and afterthought that failed to raise reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

convicted

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Sentence: 3 years imprisonment from date of conviction 14 February 2020