Back
2013 MarsdenLR 1537
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SHAMSUL KAMAR KARIA @ HALIM – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: K-05-465-2010]
A specific evidentiary provision in a statute governs admissibility over general provisions, thus invalidating the Chemist's report due to non-compliance, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) and (2) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 399(1) and Evidence Act - Section 32(1) - Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for drug trafficking, quashed due to lack of credible evidence of cannabis identification - The Chemist's report was admitted wrongly as the preconditions for its admissibility were not met. (Paras 6, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Legal standards for admissibility of evidence - A specific provision in the CPC for admissibility (s 399) prevails over general provisions in other statutes (s 32 of the Evidence Act) concerning evidentiary rules. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for trafficking a significant quantity of cannabis but challenged the conviction based on evidentiary defects regarding the identification of the drug.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was quashed owing to insufficient evidence to support the charge after improperly admitted evidence was excluded.
Issues: Whether the Chemist's report, under the specified provisions, constituted valid evidence for the conviction of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Without the Chemist's valid report, the essential elements of the drug offence were not established, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction quashed and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges and trial process details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
[1] Shamsul Kamar bin Karia @ Halim ("appellant") and one Awi bin Yusof ("Awi") were charged and tried together for trafficking in 4,424.0 grammes of cannabis before the Alor Setar High Court, an offence in contravention of s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA"), and punishable with mandatory death penalty prescribed under s 39B(2) of the read with s 34 of the Penal Code .
[2] The offence was said to have been committed on 23 March 2006 at about 3.30pm in front of a row of shophouses at No. 3, Lorong 1, Taman Sutera, Batu 2, Sungai Petani, in the District of Kuala Muda, in the State of Kedah Darul Aman. Both the appellant and Awi were said to act in concert in furtherance of a common intention to traffic the drugs.
[3] At the end of the case for the prosecution, the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") found that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case against Awi, and accordingly, Awi was acquitted without calling for him to enter his defence. In respect of the appellant, the learned JC held that a prima facie case had been made out against him. The learned JC then called upon the appellant to enter his defence. The learned JC, at the conclusion of the trial, convicted the appellant on the charge and sentenced him to the mandatory death penalty, and against that conviction he had appealed to this Court.
