MOHD FAUZI ADZLIZAN BIN ABDULLAH

MOHD FAUZI ADZLIZAN BIN ABDULLAH

The prosecution proved the statutory elements beyond reasonable doubt: the urine specimen was lawfully obtained under s31A, laboratory analysis established methamphetamine and amphetamine, statutory presumption under s37(k) applied and the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TC-82D-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Fauzi Adzlizan bin Abdullah
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 November 2022
Case Number
TC-82D-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs (consumption) / Conviction and Sentencing in Magistrates' Court; Appeal Filed to High Court
Outcome
Accused convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment from date of conviction (sentence suspended) and 3 years AADK supervision; appeal to High Court filed by accused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act, Urine Specimen Procedure (s31 A), Admissibility of Administrative Guidelines, Burden and Standard of Proof, Defence of Innocent Ingestion, Sentencing and Mitigation
Criminal Law Narcotics/drug Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act Urine Specimen Procedure (s31 A) Admissibility of Administrative Guidelines Burden and Standard of Proof +2 more

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

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Mohd Fauzi Adzlizan bin Abdullah

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs (consumption) / Conviction and Sentencing in Magistrates' Court; Appeal Filed to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PTKPN F103 and KKM Guideline Bil 6/2002 are legally binding and fatal to prosecution if not complied with
  2. 2 Whether the substances detected (methamphetamine and amphetamine) are scheduled dangerous drugs or poisons
  3. 3 Whether investigator (SP4) failed to investigate accused's defence and whether that failure vitiates prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution proved the statutory elements beyond reasonable doubt: the urine specimen was lawfully obtained under s31A, laboratory analysis established methamphetamine and amphetamine, statutory presumption under s37(k) applied and the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; administrative guidelines (PTKPN F103 and KKM Bil 6/2002) are non‑binding and non‑compliance did not invalidate the prosecution; matter convicted under s15(1)(a) DDA and sentenced accordingly.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment from date of conviction (sentence suspended) and 3 years AADK supervision; appeal to High Court filed by accused.

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Sentence: 10 months imprisonment starting date of conviction (suspended)