Back
2021 MarsdenLR 1714
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MUHAMMAD LUKMAN MOHAMAD – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05(M)-300-12-2019(B)]
The appellant cannot be convicted for drug trafficking without proving the weight or quantity of the drugs involved beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Sections 39B(1)(a), 39A(2), and 9 – Appeal against conviction for drug trafficking charges related to Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol – The failure of the chemist to conduct quantitative analysis does not negate the prosecution's burden of proof as the weight or quantity of drugs is essential. (Paras 24, 26, 34)
(B) It was held that the amount of drugs remains a critical element for establishing trafficking charges under DDA 1952. (Paras 25, 32)
Facts of the case: The appellant was charged with trafficking Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol at a residential location; the analysis of seized substances was incomplete regarding quantification. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court: The conviction for trafficking was set aside due to prosecution's failure to quantify the drugs beyond reasonable doubt; substituted with possession charges instead. (Paras 46-48)
Issues: The court examined the necessity of proving net weights of the substances involved in the trafficking charges. (Paras 1-2)
Ratio Decidendi: Without established weight or quantity of drugs, the conviction for trafficking is not sustainable; proof beyond reasonable doubt is pivotal in criminal proceedings. (Paras 26, 34)
Result: Appeal allowed; convictions for trafficking set aside and convictions for possession substituted.
Introduction
[1] In this appeal, the key issues posed for our determination may be paraphrased as follows:
(i) whether in order to establish a drug trafficking charge under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA 1952"), it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the net weight of the impugned drugs ("1st Issue");
(ii) whether on the factual matrix of the case, the appellant ought to be convicted under s 9 of DDA 1952 on the grounds that the amount or quantity of the dangerous drugs involved in the offence/ offences cannot be quantified or scientifically determined ("2nd Issue"); and
(iii) whether the dangerous drugs stated in the 1st and 2nd charges (Delta-9 charges) were medicinal cannabis and as such cannot be caught within the ambit of DDA 1952 ("3rd Issue").
[2] For easy reference, we reproduce the charges thus:
1st Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 7 Disember 2015, pada jam lebih kurang 06.45 petang, bertempat di rumah No 50, Jalan Mentari IB/10 Bandar Mahkota, Banting di dalam Daerah Kuala Langat, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati memperedarkan dadah berbahaya seberat 3010 milliliter jenis DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL 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."
2nd Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 7 Disember 2015, pada jam lebih kurang 06.45 petang, bertempat di rumah No 50, Jalan Mentari 1B/10 Bandar Mahkota, Banting di dalam Daerah Kuala Langat, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati memperedarkan dadah berbahaya seberat 1422 gram jenis DELTA-9- TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL 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."
3rd Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 7 Disember 2015, pada jam lebih kurang 06.45 petang, bertempat di rumah No 50, Jalan Mentari IB/10 Bandar Mahkota, Banting di dalam Daerah Kuala Langat, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati memperedarkan dadah berbahaya seberat 279.81 gram jenis Cannabis 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."
The Facts
[3] The material facts germane to this appeal may be summarised thus. On 7 December 2015, a police team raided a house at No 50, Jalan Mentari 1B/10 Bandar Mahkota, Banting, Kuala Langat, Selangor. In the house, the raiding team found the following items:
(i) In the hall
Apparatus and paraphernalias for smoking drugs.
(ii) Under the stair
Cardboxes contained numerous Pos Laju receipts and packages of caps of vape bottles.
(iii) At the kitchen
(a) Two trays filled with ninety bottles (filled with cannabis oil) and the said drugs were on an oven.
(b) A jar of biscuits, a slow cooker and a box containing oil.
(iv) Bedroom
(a) A yellow bag on the mattress; and
(b) Upon inspection of the bedroom, cannabis was found.
(v) Middle room
A glass cylinder bottle and boxes of wrapping papers.
[4] The leader of the police team, Inspector Mohd Hurairah Alinur bin Mohd Zaid (SP7), prepared a search list and marked the items which were seized and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer (SP9).
[5] The chemist, Khairul Hadi bin Hj Abdul Raof (SP6), conducted chemical analysis of the items which were seized and suspected to be drugs. At the outset, it must be noted that SP6 did not conduct quantitative analysis.
[6] The results of the analysis are as follows:
(i) "Tumbuhan mampat" marked as AA-1
Cannabis weighing 232 grams
(ii) "Ranting bahan tumbuhan" marked as AA-2
Cannabis weighing 13.39 grams
(iii) Plastic bag marked as H13 filled with "bahan tumbuhan hancur" and oil
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol weighing 505.3 grams
(iv) Plastic bag marked as U-2
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol weighing 375.3 gram.
(v) Plastic bag marked as U-1 which consisted of "bahan tumbuhan hancur"
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol weighing 460.9 grams
(vi) Bo
