NIK MOHD ZULKIFLI BIN NIK AHMAD

NIK MOHD ZULKIFLI BIN NIK AHMAD

The court found the prosecution proved identity and unbroken chain of custody for the urine sample, the testing complied with s31A and the laboratory confirmed Amphetamine and Methamphetamine which are scheduled drugs; the statutory presumption under s37(k) therefore applied and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities or to raise a reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused was convicted under s15(1)(a) DDA and sentenced.

Citation
JA-82D-22-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Nik Mohd Zulkifli bin Nik Ahmad
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 April 2025
Case Number
JA-82D-22-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Drug Offence (section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Trial Judgment and Sentencing (magistrates' Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted of offence under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Legal Topics
Self Administration of Drugs, Chain of Custody, Urine Testing Procedure (s31 A), Presumption Under S37(k), Prima Facie Burden, Rebuttal on Balance of Probabilities, Sentencing Principles and Aggravating Factors
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Self Administration of Drugs Chain of Custody Urine Testing Procedure (s31 A) Presumption Under S37(k) Prima Facie Burden +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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Nik Mohd Zulkifli bin Nik Ahmad

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Drug Offence (section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Trial Judgment and Sentencing (magistrates' Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the urine sample was proved to belong to the accused
  2. 2 Whether the urine test complied with Section 31A procedural requirements
  3. 3 Whether Amphetamine and Methamphetamine were detected and are scheduled drugs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution proved identity and unbroken chain of custody for the urine sample, the testing complied with s31A and the laboratory confirmed Amphetamine and Methamphetamine which are scheduled drugs; the statutory presumption under s37(k) therefore applied and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities or to raise a reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused was convicted under s15(1)(a) DDA and sentenced.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted of offence under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Denda RM4500 atau jika gagal bayar 10 bulan penjara