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

2022 MarsdenLR 1901

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
ARIFF ARHANNAN CHE UDIN – Appellant
Versus
PP & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Hisyam Teh Poh Teik,Kee Wai Lon ,Respondent Advocate: Aslinda Ahad,Nahra Dollah

Judgement Key Points

The term "declaration" in the context of criminal law and drug offences generally refers to a formal statement or formalized assertion made by an individual, often in writing, that explicitly states certain facts or intentions. In the context of the provided legal document, a declaration could encompass a formal statement made by the accused or a third party that asserts particular facts relevant to the case, such as ownership, knowledge of the drug, or other relevant circumstances (!) (!) .

However, the document emphasizes that conduct, such as physically handing over a black bag containing drugs, does not constitute a "statement" under the relevant statutory provisions unless it is communicated in a manner that qualifies as a verbal or written communication (!) (!) . The courts have clarified that conduct alone, such as running away or handing over an object, is not regarded as a declaration unless it is explicitly understood as an oral or written assertion conveying specific facts (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the legal principles outlined indicate that a declaration, as a formal statement, must be distinct from conduct and should involve a clear communication of facts, typically in oral or written form, to be admissible as evidence of an assertion or acknowledgment (!) (!) . Conduct, unless it amounts to a statement within the meaning of the law, is generally considered relevant for other purposes, such as establishing knowledge or control, but does not constitute a declaration per se (!) (!) .

In summary, a declaration in this legal context is a formal, communicative statement—either oral or written—that explicitly asserts facts relevant to the case, whereas conduct alone, without such communicative intent, does not qualify as a declaration.


JUDGMENT

Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ:

[1] In the High Court of Malaya at Seremban, the appellant was charged with two offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1952 ("the DDA ") and the charges against him were as follows:

First Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 26 Julai 2017 jam lebih kurang 2300 hrs, bertempat di rumah no 180, Jalan Kemuning 5, Taman Kemuning, Senawang di dalam daerah Seremban, di dalamj,i Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Cannabis seberat 721.26 gram. Dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

Second Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 26 Julai 2017 jam lebih kurang 2100 hrs, bertempat di tepi jalan Dataran Kemuning 1, Taman Kemuning, 70450 Senawang di dalam daerah Seremban, di dalam Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, ada dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya iaitu Cannabis seberat 29.83 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39A(1) Akta yang sama."

[2] He claimed trial to both charges at the conclusion of which he was found guilty of both by Muhammad Jamil Hussin JC (as

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top