SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1605

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
MAIDATUL AKMANAIS AHMAD KAMARUDIN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Case Nos: BA-425-2-01/2025 & BA-42S-4-01/2025]



Petitioner Advocates:Ivan Lee Fei ,Respondent Advocate: Siti Nabilah Abd Rashid

Possession of dangerous drugs requires proof of control and knowledge, with appellate courts deferring to trial judges on credibility unless errors are evident.

Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 12(2) and 39A(2) - Penal Code - Section 34 - Conviction for possession of methamphetamine - Appellants convicted and sentenced to eleven years imprisonment and twelve strokes of the rotan - Prosecution established possession and common intention - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1, 7, 13, 17)

(B) Prima Facie Case - The court must evaluate evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists, requiring credible proof of each charge element. (Paras 8, 10)

(C) Possession - The prosecution must prove control and knowledge of the drugs, which can be established through direct evidence or presumed knowledge. (Paras 11, 12)

(D) Appellate Review - An appellate court must defer to the trial judge's credibility assessments and will only intervene if the trial decision is demonstrably wrong. (Paras 14, 16) (E) Sentencing - Appellate courts will not alter sentences unless they are manifestly excessive or inadequate. (Paras 17, 20)

Table of Content
1. appeal against conviction for drug possession (Para 1 , 2)
2. legal provisions on drug possession (Para 3 , 4)
3. facts of the drug possession case (Para 5)
4. requirements for establishing possession (Para 7 , 11 , 12)
5. criteria for prima facie case (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
6. court's duty in evaluating evidence (Para 13 , 14 , 16)
7. guidelines for appellate review of sentences (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
Aslam Zainuddin J:

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Sessions Court at Shah Alam in convicting them for an offence under s 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under s 39A(2) of the said Act read together with s 34 of the Penal Code for possession of 37.47 grams of methamphetamine. The learned Session Court Judge (SCJ) sentenced the appellants to eleven years imprisonment and twelve strokes of the rotan. After hearing the parties l dismissed the appeal and maintained the decision of the SCJ. The appellants now appeal further to the Court of Appeal.

[2] The charge preferred against the appellants is as follows:

" Bahawa kamu dengan niat bersama pada 5 December 2021 jam lebih kurang 5.50 petang bertempat di No Bilik 1103, DD Hotel, 19A Jalan Tengku Ampuan Zabedah E 9/E, Seksyen 9, 40100 Shah Alam Selangor, sebagai seorang yang tidak diberi kuasa atau yang ditakrifkan sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam Bahagian III Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 telah didapati dalam milikan kamu bahan kristal jernih dadah jenis Methamphetamine berat bersih: 37.47 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39A(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca sekali di bawah s 34 Kanun Keseksaan.

Hukuman: Jika disabitkan kesalahan boleh dihukum dengan penjara seumur hidup atau suatu tempoh tidak kurang daripada lima tahun dan hukuman sebat tidak kurang daripada sepuluh sebatan."

The Law

[3] in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Act 234 it is provided in ss 12 & 39A(2) as follows:

Restriction on import and export of certain dangerous drugs

12. (1) No person shall except under the authorization of the Minister:

(a) import into Malaysia any dangerous drug specified in Parts III, IV and V of the First Schedule; or

(b) export from Malaysia any dangerous drug specified in Parts III and IV of the First Schedule.

(2) No person shall have in his possession, custody or control any dangerous drug to which this Part applies unless he is authorized to be in possession, custody or control of such drug or is deemed to be so authorized under this Act or the regulations made thereunder.

(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

(4) Any person who is a public officer employed at any prison, rehabilitation centre, police lock-up or place of detention shall, on his conviction under subsection (3) for contravening subsection (2), be liable to whipping of not more than three strokes in addition to the punishment to which he is liable under subsection (3).

Increased penalty where the subject matter is the prescribed amount of certain dangerous drugs

39A. (2) Every person found guilty of an offence against this Act where the offence is not punishable with death and where the subject matter of the offence is:

(r) 30 grammes or more in weight of Methamphetamine;

shall, instead of being liable to the punishment provided for that offence under the section under which the person has been so found guilty, be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term which shall not be less than five years, and he shall also be punished with whipping of not less than ten strokes.

[4] In the Penal Code Act 574 s 34 states:

Each of several persons liable for an act done by all, in like manner as if done by him alone

34. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top