YUSMAN BIN TINI

YUSMAN BIN TINI

Having evaluated witness testimony, exhibits and authorities, the court held prosecution proved both offences beyond reasonable doubt: laboratory reports and corroborating witness evidence established presence of methamphetamine; defects or omissions in procedure (including non-compliance with s31A and missing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
AI-82D-4-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor (PENDAKWARAYA); Defendant: Yusman bin Tini
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 August 2025
Case Number
AI-82D-4-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 / Trial/judgment and Sentencing (magistrates' Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted on two counts under section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Legal Topics
Methamphetamine Possession, Chain of Custody, Admissibility of Urine Samples, Section 31 a DDA Compliance, Presumption Under S37(k) DDA, Constructive Arrest, Sentencing for Drug Possession
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedure Methamphetamine Possession Chain of Custody Admissibility of Urine Samples Section 31 a DDA Compliance +3 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor (PENDAKWARAYA)

Prosecutor

Yusman bin Tini

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 / Trial/judgment and Sentencing (magistrates' Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved the accused inserted methamphetamine into his body beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with s31A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is fatal to admissibility of urine sample
  3. 3 Whether chain of custody was broken by missing documents/exhibits and storage gaps

Ratio Decidendi

Having evaluated witness testimony, exhibits and authorities, the court held prosecution proved both offences beyond reasonable doubt: laboratory reports and corroborating witness evidence established presence of methamphetamine; defects or omissions in procedure (including non-compliance with s31A and missing ancillary documents/exhibits) were not fatal in light of case law and explanations tendered; presumption under s37(k) applied and defence failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; accordingly accused convicted on both counts and sentenced.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on two counts under section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Orders

  • Count AI-82D-4-07/2022: Fine RM4,000.00; in default 8 months imprisonment; 3 years AADK supervision
  • Count AI-82D-5-10/2022: Fine RM4,000.00; in default 8 months imprisonment; 3 years AADK supervision