The prosecution must establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt, with evidence integrity and proper procedure crucial for a fair trial.

JUDGMENT

Teoh Shu Yee M:

Background

[1] The accused, who was a member of the police force stationed at Kuala Sg Baru police station, was charged in the this Court under the amended charge (PP5) as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 22 Ogos 2019 jam lebih kurang 1745 hrs di bahagian siasatan jenayah narkotik ibu pejabat polis IPD Alor Gajah di dalam daerah Alor Gajah di dalam negeri Melaka telah memberikan kepada diri sendiri dadah berbahaya jenis Amphetamine dan Methamphetamine yang disenaraikan di Jadual Pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 15 Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama s 38B Akta yang sama."

[2] The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has called seven witnesses as follows:

i. PW1: KPL Amrie, the photographer;

ii. PW2: SI Yazid, the escort officer;

iii. PW3: Pn Shuhada, the pathologist;

iv. PW4: En Radzi, the officer who sent the specimen;

v. PW5: ASP Huzaimi, the complainant cum arresting officer;

vi. PW6: L/KPL Thaqif, the officer of Integrity and Standards Compliance Department at PDRM (JIPS); and

vii. PW7: Insp Noorfaizah, the investigating officer.

Prosecution's Case

[3] The brief fact is as follows. On 22 August 2019 at approximately 4.10 pm, during the Ops Tapis / Ops Blue Devil, PW5 with his team, along with one officer from the Integrity and Standards Compliance Department at PDRM (JIPS) had detained a Malay male (the accused) who was a police officer stationed at the Kuala Sg Baru police station at that material time.

[4] PW5 conducted a physical examination on the accused but nothing incriminating was found. PW5 asked the accused to provide a urine sample for undergoing a preliminary screening test. However, the accused stated that he could not give the urine sample as directed by PW5 at the Kuala Sg Baru police station, explaining his inability to urinate.

[5] Subsequently, PW5 and his two raid team members, Kpl Amrie (PW1) and L/KPL Ashraf, brought the accused back to the Narcotics Crime Investigation Department of IPD Alor Gajah, using an office car. Upon arriving at the Narcotics Office of IPD Alor Gajah, the accused had provided his urine sample using a urine bottle with serial number 1071667.

[6] The said bottle containing the accused's urine sample was handled to PW5 who conducted a preliminary screening test. PW5 conducted a preliminary screening test by dipping the four strips (METH, MOP, AMP and THC) into the accused's urine sample, as witnessed by PW2 and PW6. The accused's urine sample was tested positive for Methamphetamine.

[7] Later, the accused's urine sample was sent to the Pathology Department of Hospital Kuala Lumpur by PW4, received by PW3, and subsequently analyzed for confirmation. The analysis by PW3 found that the accused's urine sample contained the drugs Amphetamine and Methamphetamine. On 3 September 2019, PW3 issued a Pathology Report with Laboratory No 9549527 (P11).

Analysis And Findings At The End Of The Prosecution's Case

Prosecution's Submission

[8] It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the following elements of the offence charged against the accused, as submitted by the prosecution, that:

i. the urine sample in the bottle with serial number 1071667 belongs to the accused person;

ii. the screening test of the accused's urine sample complies with the provisions of s 31A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (' DDA '); and

iii. that the said Methamphetamine and Amphetamine contained in the accused's urine sample, as analysed by the pathologist, are listed under Parts III and IV of the First Schedule of the DDA .

Defence Counsel's Submission

[9] The Court must always be mindful of its limits of judicial intervention. It was held that in the case of Abuchi Ngwoke v. PP; [2016] 2 MLJ 623; [2016] 5 CLJ 1 (CoA), the trial judge had descended into the dispute regarding the knowledge element of the drugs in the 29 capsules swallowed by t