Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PP – Appellant
Versus
BAYATI HEIDER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges against the accused. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the arrest and evidence collection. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evaluating prima facie case requirement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. failure to comply with statutory requirements. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. inconsistencies in oral evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. importance of evidence identity in drug cases. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. prosecution failed to establish a case. (Para 30) |
The Charge
[1] The accused in this case was charged as follows:
"That you on 3 October 2009 till 6 October 2009 at the toilet in Ward 7C, Hospital Serdang in the District of Sepang, in the state of Selangor, did traffic in a dangerous drugs, to wit 393 grams of methamphetamine; and thereby committed an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act."
The Facts
[2] The evidence led by the prosecution showed that the accused together with two others was detained at KLIA by SP5 (ASP Ahmad Nor a/l Nai) and his team. On a full body search and baggage check nothing incriminating was found. However the refusal by the accused and the two oth
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
