SHAHRUL NIZAM BIN SHOHODIN

SHAHRUL NIZAM BIN SHOHODIN

Court found prosecution proved a prima facie case under s.15(1)(a) DDA 1952; the alleged break in the chain (discrepancy in D21 serial number) was a clerical mistake explained and corroborated, so chain of custody remained intact; s.37(k) presumption applied and the accused failed to rebut it on balance of probabilities; accused convicted and sentenced accordingly.

Citation
BH-82D-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Shahrul Nizam bin Shohodin
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Case Number
BH-82D-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Guilty as charged (convicted)
Legal Topics
Self Administration Under S.15 DDA 1952, Presumption Under S.37(k) DDA 1952, Chain of Custody, Preliminary Urine Testing (s.31 A), Sentencing Principles
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Self Administration Under S.15 DDA 1952 Presumption Under S.37(k) DDA 1952 Chain of Custody Preliminary Urine Testing (s.31 A) Sentencing Principles

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

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Shahrul Nizam bin Shohodin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved offence under s.15(1)(a) DDA 1952
  2. 2 Whether there was a break in the chain of custody of the urine sample
  3. 3 Whether discrepancies in witness evidence undermined prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

Court found prosecution proved a prima facie case under s.15(1)(a) DDA 1952; the alleged break in the chain (discrepancy in D21 serial number) was a clerical mistake explained and corroborated, so chain of custody remained intact; s.37(k) presumption applied and the accused failed to rebut it on balance of probabilities; accused convicted and sentenced accordingly.

Court Disposition

Guilty as charged (convicted)

Orders

  • Accused convicted of the offence under section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Fine of RM5000; in default of payment to serve five months imprisonment