[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHD NOOR BIN ARIFIN

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHD NOOR BIN ARIFIN

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material, unexplained contradictions between oral testimony and the exhibit (P9) regarding the identity and number of urine specimen bottles created a fatal gap in chain of custody and identity of the sample; absence of explanation or production of the second bottle permitted an adverse inference under s114(g) and raised reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
CJ-82D-18-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Noor bin Arifin (No. K/P: 760104-03-5577)
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Case Number
CJ-82D-18-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (section 15(1)(a)) / Close of Prosecution; Acquittal at End of Prosecution Case (not Called to Defence)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case; not called to enter defence.
Legal Topics
Prima Facie, Chain of Custody, Identity of Exhibits, Presumption Under S114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Compliance With Police Specimen Procedures/igso
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Administrative Law (police Procedure) Prima Facie Chain of Custody Identity of Exhibits Presumption Under S114(g) Evidence Act 1950 Compliance With Police Specimen Procedures/igso

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Mohd Noor bin Arifin (No. K/P: 760104-03-5577)

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (section 15(1)(a)) / Close of Prosecution; Acquittal at End of Prosecution Case (not Called to Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved a prima facie case on each ingredient of Section 15(1)(a) DDA 1952
  2. 2 Discrepancy in identity and number of urine sample bottles (chain of custody)
  3. 3 Failure to produce/explain second urine bottle referenced in exhibit P9

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material, unexplained contradictions between oral testimony and the exhibit (P9) regarding the identity and number of urine specimen bottles created a fatal gap in chain of custody and identity of the sample; absence of explanation or production of the second bottle permitted an adverse inference under s114(g) and raised reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case; not called to enter defence.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case
  • Bail monies to be returned to the accused