1. ) ZULFAHMI 2. ) ZULPELI

1. ) ZULFAHMI 2. ) ZULPELI

The court held the prosecution failed to prove that the first accused had the requisite possession, control or knowledge of the seized cigarettes because the premises were accessible to others, third‑party access and ownership were not investigated or witnesses called, there was no forensic linkage to the accused, and inferences from the accused's conduct were unsafe; therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was acquitted.

Citation
WA-83-8530-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA; Defendant: ZULFAHMI; Defendant: ZULKEPLI
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 September 2023
Case Number
WA-83-8530-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (customs and Excise) / Trial — Close of Prosecution Case; Court Found No Prima Facie Case and Acquitted Accused (first Accused)
Outcome
First accused (Zulfahmi) acquitted and discharged due to absence of prima facie case; proceedings against second accused not determined in this judgment
Legal Topics
Possession, Burden of Proof, Statutory Presumptions, Sampling and Testing (section 120), Compliance With Procedure
Source Language
Malay/English
Customs Law Excise Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Possession Burden of Proof Statutory Presumptions Sampling and Testing (section 120) +1 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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecutor

ZULFAHMI

Defendant

ZULKEPLI

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (customs and Excise) / Trial — Close of Prosecution Case; Court Found No Prima Facie Case and Acquitted Accused (first Accused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved possession and control of prohibited goods by the first accused
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumptions under the Customs and Excise Acts could be invoked to shift the burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution complied with statutory sampling/testing requirements (s120 Customs Act / s60 Excise Act) and evidence service requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the prosecution failed to prove that the first accused had the requisite possession, control or knowledge of the seized cigarettes because the premises were accessible to others, third‑party access and ownership were not investigated or witnesses called, there was no forensic linkage to the accused, and inferences from the accused's conduct were unsafe; therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

First accused (Zulfahmi) acquitted and discharged due to absence of prima facie case; proceedings against second accused not determined in this judgment

Orders

  • First accused ZULFAHMI is acquitted and discharged from the charges