MOHAMAD HAFIZI BIN SAAD

MOHAMAD HAFIZI BIN SAAD

Prosecution failed to satisfy statutory preconditions of s31A DDA (arrest occurred only after screening) so the s37(k) presumption could not be relied upon; material inconsistencies and gaps in the chain of custody, discrepancies in seals, volume and witness testimony undermined the identity and reliability of the urine sample and the credibility of prosecution witnesses; on maximum evaluation no prima facie case was established, therefore the accused was acquitted and discharged.

Citation
JA-82D-19-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Hafizi bin Saad
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Case Number
JA-82D-19-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence / Close of Prosecution Case Accused Discharged (no Call to Defence)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged (no call to defence)
Legal Topics
Self Administration, Urine Sample/forensic Testing, Chain of Custody, Presumption Under S37(k) DDA, Compliance With S31 a DDA, Prima Facie Threshold
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedural Law Self Administration Urine Sample/forensic Testing Chain of Custody Presumption Under S37(k) DDA +2 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Mohd Hafizi bin Saad

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence / Close of Prosecution Case Accused Discharged (no Call to Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory preconditions of s31A Dangerous Drugs Act were complied with
  2. 2 Whether s37(k) presumption of consumption could be invoked
  3. 3 Whether identity and chain of custody of the urine sample (P5) was established

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to satisfy statutory preconditions of s31A DDA (arrest occurred only after screening) so the s37(k) presumption could not be relied upon; material inconsistencies and gaps in the chain of custody, discrepancies in seals, volume and witness testimony undermined the identity and reliability of the urine sample and the credibility of prosecution witnesses; on maximum evaluation no prima facie case was established, therefore the accused was acquitted and discharged.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged (no call to defence)

Orders

  • Urine sample exhibit P5 to be expunged/excluded from evidence
  • Bail deposit of RM2000 returned to accused