The court affirmed that statutory presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Act apply when large quantities of drugs are involved, establishing trafficking and possession despite the accused's claims of ignorance.

JUDGMENT

Su Tiang Joo J:

Introduction

[1] Mahir Affandi bin Mohamad ("the accused"), faced two charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA "). One was for trafficking in dangerous drugs which carries very severe penalties if convicted, and the other for possession of dangerous drugs. He was caught at his home with the dangerous drugs found in his house. At the end of the prosecution case, I held that a prima facie case had been made out. The accused was called to enter his defence to both charges. As the sole witness for the defence, he testified on oath. At the end of his defence case, I found him guilty and convicted him on both charges.

[2] He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and 15 strokes of whipping for the offence of trafficking in 2,828.60 grams of Methamphetamine. He was also sentenced to three years of imprisonment and three strokes of whipping for the other offence of being in possession of 5.19 grams of Methamphetamine. Both sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently from the date of his arrest on 11 April 2017 and these are the grounds for the decision made.

Charges

[3] In case No AA-45A-5-06/2019 ("Trafficking Charge") the amended charge (P4) against the accused for trafficking in 2,828.60 grams of Methamphetamine in its original language reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 11 April 2017, jam lebih kurang 2.00 pagi, bertempat di rumah kakitangan No L3-3, Jalan Besout 7, Felda Gunung Besout 2, Sungkai di dalam Daerah Muallim, Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya, iaitu sejumlah berat 2,828.60 gram Methamphetamine dan dengan itu, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama.

Hukuman: Mati"

[4] In case No AA-45-1-02/2020 ("Possession Charge") the charge (P2) against the accused in its original language reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 11 April 2017, jam lebih kurang 2.00 pagi, bertempat di rumah kakitangan No L3-3, Jalan Besout 7, Felda Gunung Besout 2, 920 Sungkai di dalam Daerah Muallim, Negeri Perak Darul Rizuan, telah ada dalam di dalam kawalan kamu berat bersih bahan 5.19 gram yang mengandungi dadah jenis Methamphetamine oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39A(1) Akta yang sama.

Hukuman: Penjara tidak kurang dari 2 tahun dan tidak lebih dari 5 tahun dan sebat tidak kurang dari 3 sebatan dan tidak melebihi 9 sebatan".

[5] At the time when the Trafficking Charge was read out to the accused on 20 June 2019, the mandatory sentence upon conviction was the death penalty or in limited circumstances under ss 39B(2) read with 39(2A) DDA , imprisonment for life and whipping of not less than 15 strokes.

[6] Understandably, as the two alleged offences took place at the same place and time, the two charges under the two cases were consolidated and tried together.

Trial

[7] The trial commenced on 4 March 2020. By reason of the several Movement Control Orders brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic the progress of the trial was impeded with 10 days of trial having to be vacated. Given the large number of exhibits required to be produced, It took two whole days just for the production, admission and marking of the huge number of packets of drugs. Altogether, other than seven witness statements, the consolidated case saw the production of 539 exhibits. Due to a personal tragedy involving one of the learned deputy public prosecutors, three days fixed for trial had to be postponed. And, on 28 February 2023 I was transferred to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur. This necessitated the re-adjustment of my diary for me to return to the High Court at Ipoh on certain days to continue with the hearing of this matter. It was finally concluded on 17 May 2024 after 17 days of trial.

Prosecution's Case

Burden Of Proof

[8] The law demands that the prosecution has to make out a prima facie case against the accused at the end of the prosecu