1. ) MOHD NORFAISAL BIN BAHARUN 2. ) MOHD HAIRUDIN BIN MOHD MUSTAFA

1. ) MOHD NORFAISAL BIN BAHARUN 2. ) MOHD HAIRUDIN BIN MOHD MUSTAFA

Court accepted chemical identification of seized liquid but found prosecution failed to prove possession, control and knowledge by the two accused or a common intention: premises, kitchen and unlocked refrigerator were accessible to many; keys left under car tyre allowed public access; investigating officer did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JD-82D-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Norfaisal bin Baharun; Accused: Mohd Hairudin bin Mohd Mustafa
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 May 2025
Case Number
JD-82D-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Trial Under Poisons Act 1952 (seksyen 30(3)) / Close of Prosecution Case and Judgment (acquitted Without Being Called to Defence)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; charges dismissed without being called to defend.
Legal Topics
Prima Facie Case, Possession and Knowledge, Joint Liability / Common Intention (s.34), Chain of Custody, Forensic Fingerprint/dna Evidence
Criminal Law Statutory Poisons/drug Offences Evidence and Forensics Prima Facie Case Possession and Knowledge Joint Liability / Common Intention (s.34) Chain of Custody Forensic Fingerprint/dna Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Mohd Norfaisal bin Baharun

Accused

Mohd Hairudin bin Mohd Mustafa

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Summary Trial Under Poisons Act 1952 (seksyen 30(3)) / Close of Prosecution Case and Judgment (acquitted Without Being Called to Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized bottles contained Mitragynine and Caffeine as alleged
  2. 2 Whether the accused had possession, custody or control and knowledge of the seized substances
  3. 3 Whether there was common intention (joint liability) between the two accused

Ratio Decidendi

Court accepted chemical identification of seized liquid but found prosecution failed to prove possession, control and knowledge by the two accused or a common intention: premises, kitchen and unlocked refrigerator were accessible to many; keys left under car tyre allowed public access; investigating officer did not conduct fingerprint/DNA testing to establish nexus; therefore no prima facie case and accused were discharged and acquitted without being called to defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; charges dismissed without being called to defend.

Orders

  • Both accused are discharged and acquitted of the charge under Section 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 read with Section 34 Kanun Keseksaan.
  • Court ordered return of bail: RM3,000 deposited for each accused to be refunded.