Back
2023 MarsdenLR 235
HIGH COURT MALAYA BUTTERWORTH
PP – Appellant
Versus
MOHD MUSTAQIM RAZAK – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: PB-45A-37-06-2021]
The prosecution must prove possession, knowledge, and trafficking of drugs beyond reasonable doubt; doubts regarding evidence lead to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) and (2) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 180(1) - The accused was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs, specifically Methamphetamine weighing 678.7 grams. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case due to doubts regarding the identity of the seized drugs and the integrity of the evidence chain. The court emphasized that possession, knowledge, and trafficking must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was acquitted and discharged without entering a defense. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 80, 82)
(B) The principle of possession requires both physical control and knowledge of the substance, and the prosecution must prove these elements to establish guilt. (Paras 56, 59)
(C) The court reiterated that the presumption of innocence must favor the accused, and any significant doubts or discrepancies in evidence must be resolved in their favor. (Paras 51, 80)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused not guilty after prosecution's failure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. existence of doubt on evidence leads to appeal. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. prosecution's evidence collection process. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. chemist confirms drugs as methamphetamine. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. burden of proof lies with prosecution. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 6. credibility of chemist testimony upheld. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. doubt on drug identity due to evidence discrepancies. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. questionable handling of evidence affects case. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 9. integrity of evidence chain is crucial. (Para 43 , 44) |
| 10. prosecution's argument on evidence found inaccurate. (Para 45 , 46 , 49) |
| 11. legal principles favor accused in evidence doubt. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 12. inconsistencies in witness testimonies affect prosecution. (Para 56 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 13. prosecution's claim of trafficking fails without possession. (Para 73 , 74 , 77 , 78) |
| 14. court concludes prosecution failed to establish case. (Para 80 , 81) |
Introduction
[1] The accused was arraigned before this court for a charge, which reads as follows:
Bahawa kamu pada 20 Ogos 2020 pada jam lebih kurang 1.35 petang, bertempat di tepi Jalan Sempilai berhampiran Kedai Makan Subaidah Seberang Jaya, 14000 Bukit Mertajam, dalam daerah Seberang Perai Tengah, dalam negeri Pulau Pinang telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 678.7 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.
[2] The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for a trial. The trial proceeded, during which a total of 3 witnesses was called to give evidence and 25 exhibits were presented.
[3] At the conclusion of the prosecution's case, this court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The accused has been acquitted and discharged without being called to enter his defense.
[4] In delivering the decision, this court has stated that there exists doubt regarding the identity of the seized drugs, namely whether the substances analyzed by the chemist are the same drugs confiscated or seized by PW2.
[5] The prosecution is dissatisfied with the said decision and has appealed to the court of Appeals against the decision. These are therefore my reasons.
Summary Of The Prosecution's Case
[6] The Prosecution has called a total of three witnesses as follows:
PW1 - Noor Fadzlina binti Mohd Fauzi (Chemist)
PW2 - ASP Fadli bin Ahmad (Raiding Officer)
PW3 - Insp Muhammad Amirul Mukmin bin Aziz (Investigating Officer)
[7] The case exhibits have been marked as follows:
[8] The chronology of this case begins when PW2 received information regarding drug activities on Sempilai Road, Seberang Jaya, Penang.
[9] On 20.8. 2020, acting on the received information, PW2 together with several officers proceeded to the area of Sempilai Road near Subaidah Restaurant in Seberang Jaya.
[10] At approximately 1335hrs, PW2 observed a Malay male (the accused) standing by the roadside in a suspicious manner. PW2 approached the accused and conducted a body search. The accused tried to escape and a struggle ensued. Eventually, the accused was successfully apprehended, and he handed over a black plastic bag to PW2.
[11] PW2 examined the contents of the black plastic bag and found inside it a plastic package labeled "GUANYINWANG" containing a transparent plastic package which containing crystal suspected methamphetamine.
[12] After completing the examination, PW2 brought the accused and the seized items to the Narcotics Crime Investigation Department (JSJN), Central Seberang Perai District Police Headquarters (IPD SPT) for further action.
[13] At the JSJN office, PW2 has taken action on the seized items, namely by marking, weighing, preparing the search list form (exhibit P4), and lodged a police report Seberang Jaya No 5304/2020 (ex
