MOHAMAD ELIYAS BIN SUIB

MOHAMAD ELIYAS BIN SUIB

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case on both charges: for the s12(2)/s39A(1) charge the accurate weight of methamphetamine (5.56g) was not proved because the chemist could not confirm the digital scale and computer were in good working order and prosecution did not tender a s90A certificate or call the responsible person; for the s15(1)(a) charge the allegation included "amp" which is not specified in Parts III or IV of the First Schedule so that charge lacked an essential ingredient. Accordingly the accused must be acquitted without calling defence.

Citation
KA-41H-3-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Mohamad Eliyas bin Suib; Respondent/prosecution: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Case Number
KA-41H-3-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence (dangerous Drugs Act) / High Court Judgment on Appeal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in favour of accused; prosecution failed to make out prima facie case on both charges; accused acquitted
Legal Topics
Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Computer Produced Evidence (s90 A), Weight of Drugs as Ingredient, Self Administration Under DDA
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Drug Law Prima Facie Case Burden of Proof Admissibility of Computer Produced Evidence (s90 A) Weight of Drugs as Ingredient Self Administration Under DDA

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamad Eliyas bin Suib

Appellant/accused

Public Prosecutor

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence (dangerous Drugs Act) / High Court Judgment on Appeal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case under s12(2) DDA punishable under s39A(1) DDA at close of prosecution case
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case under s15(1)(a) DDA at close of prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case on both charges: for the s12(2)/s39A(1) charge the accurate weight of methamphetamine (5.56g) was not proved because the chemist could not confirm the digital scale and computer were in good working order and prosecution did not tender a s90A certificate or call the responsible person; for the s15(1)(a) charge the allegation included "amp" which is not specified in Parts III or IV of the First Schedule so that charge lacked an essential ingredient. Accordingly the accused must be acquitted without calling defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in favour of accused; prosecution failed to make out prima facie case on both charges; accused acquitted

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged of the charge under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under s39A(1)
  • Accused acquitted and discharged of the charge under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952