Suhaimi Bin Suib

Suhaimi Bin Suib

The court accepted prosecution witnesses and the chemist’s analysis under s45 Evidence Act 1950 as reliable, rejected the defence clinical report D14 as a late, clinically‑produced afterthought lacking chain of custody and relevance, found the defence denials uncorroborated, and held prosecution proved guilt beyond...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-82D-41-09/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWARAYA; Defendant: SUHAIMI BIN SUIB
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 December 2024
Case Number
WA-82D-41-09/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Magistrate Court (dangerous Drugs) / Decision at End of Defence and Sentencing (appeal Against Conviction Filed)
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Use/consumption of Controlled Drugs, Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Chain of Custody, Expert Chemical Analysis (s45 Evidence Act 1950), End of Defence Decision, Mitigation and Sentencing
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Sentencing Use/consumption of Controlled Drugs Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Chain of Custody Expert Chemical Analysis (s45 Evidence Act 1950) +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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWARAYA

Prosecution

SUHAIMI BIN SUIB

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Magistrate Court (dangerous Drugs) / Decision at End of Defence and Sentencing (appeal Against Conviction Filed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved the offence under s15(1)(a) DDA 1952 beyond reasonable doubt at the end of defence
  2. 2 Credibility of police witnesses and allegation of fabrication
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of chemist expert evidence (s45 Evidence Act 1950)

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted prosecution witnesses and the chemist’s analysis under s45 Evidence Act 1950 as reliable, rejected the defence clinical report D14 as a late, clinically‑produced afterthought lacking chain of custody and relevance, found the defence denials uncorroborated, and held prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; the accused was convicted and sentenced to a fine of RM4,500 (default nine months' imprisonment) with AADK supervision for two years; stay of execution refused.

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
  • Sentence: Fine RM4,500; default imprisonment nine (9) months if fine not paid.