[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] AMIRUL IMAN BIN AZHAR

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] AMIRUL IMAN BIN AZHAR

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: identity of the drug as cannabis was satisfactorily proved by the chemist, but significant and unexplained discrepancies in reported weights, four missing packets, gaps in chain of custody, failure to produce CCTV and material raiding-team witnesses, and material contradictions in police evidence created reasonable doubt as to possession and common intention; consequently possession and trafficking elements under s.39B and s.6 DDA (and s.34 Penal Code) were not proved at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
WA-45A-13-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; 1st Accused: Muhammad Haziq Irfan bin Mohd Zamry; 2nd Accused: Amirul Iman bin Azhar
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 January 2024
Case Number
WA-45A-13-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Close of Prosecution Case / Determination of Prima Facie Case
Outcome
No prima facie case made out; prosecution evidence insufficient to proceed
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Chain of Custody, Common Intention, Prima Facie Assessment, Identity of Drugs, CCTV Evidence, Police Credibility, Section 39 B DDA, Section 6 DDA, Section 37 DDA, Section 34 Penal Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Trafficking Possession Chain of Custody Common Intention Prima Facie Assessment +7 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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Muhammad Haziq Irfan bin Mohd Zamry

1st Accused

Amirul Iman bin Azhar

2nd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Close of Prosecution Case / Determination of Prima Facie Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned plant material is cannabis within s.2 DDA
  2. 2 Whether chain of custody and identity of exhibits are intact given weight discrepancies and missing packets
  3. 3 Whether the accused persons had possession (knowledge and control) of the drugs seized

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: identity of the drug as cannabis was satisfactorily proved by the chemist, but significant and unexplained discrepancies in reported weights, four missing packets, gaps in chain of custody, failure to produce CCTV and material raiding-team witnesses, and material contradictions in police evidence created reasonable doubt as to possession and common intention; consequently possession and trafficking elements under s.39B and s.6 DDA (and s.34 Penal Code) were not proved at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

No prima facie case made out; prosecution evidence insufficient to proceed

Orders

  • Prosecution has failed to prove possession or trafficking beyond reasonable doubt at the close of the prosecution case
  • Charges dismissed/discharged for want of a prima facie case (accused entitled to acquittal at this stage)