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

2025 MarsdenLR 2782

HIGH COURT MALAYA TAIPING
AHMAD FARIDZ MOHD FADZIL – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: AB-42S-4-07/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:M. Saravanan ,Respondent Advocate: Mohd. Waffy Ismail

The appellate court confirmed that the prosecution established the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for cultivating and possessing cannabis, rejecting the defense as a bare denial without raising reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 6B(1)(a), 6B(3), and 6 - Conviction for cultivating and possessing cannabis - Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment for cultivation, and concurrent sentences for possession - SCJ found prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - The Appellant's defense of being framed was a bare denial and did not raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's evidence. (Paras 3, 4, 13, 66)

(B) Evidence - Standard of proof in criminal proceedings - Court evaluates credibility of witnesses; adverse inferences may be drawn from non-calls of crucial witnesses. (Paras 48, 60)

(C) Appeals - Appellate court affirms the decision of the trial court unless serious misdirection found. (Paras 7, 66)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was convicted for cultivating cannabis and found in possession of cannabis plants and seeds following surveillance by police. There were multiple witnesses, and the Appellant represented himself during trial. The SCJ provided opportunities for the Appellant to prepare his defense.

Findings of Court:
The SCJ found the Appellant guilty based on credible evidence and dismissed the defense as a bare denial that did not raise doubt on the prosecution's case.

Issues: The primary issues included the Appellant’s access to the premises, the credibility of witnesses, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution met its burden of proof, confirming that the Appellant had custody and control of the illicit drugs and knowledge of their presence.

Result: Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of drug-related charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. appellant's trial process and legal representation (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. witness testimonies and evidence collection (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's burden of proof standards (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. judicial evaluation of witness credibility (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. impact of witness relationships on testimony (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. eligibility of confessions under law (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. criteria for proving possession of drugs (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
9. circumstantial evidence and witness recollection (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
10. legal presumptions regarding possession (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
11. shifting burden of proof in drug possession cases (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
12. appellant's defense strategy and rebuttals (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
13. principles surrounding reasonable doubt (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
14. rationale behind sentencing (Para 64 , 65 , 66)
Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin J:

Introduction

[1] This grounds of judgment has been prepared in respect of an appeal from the decision of this Court on 7 March 2025 by the Appellant, Ahmad Faridz Bin Mohd Fadzil, that upheld the convictions and sentences passed by the Taiping Sessions Court on 28 June 2024 for 3 offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234] ("the Act"). The Notice of Appeal was filed on 11 March 2024 by the Prison Department on his behalf against conviction and sentence.

[2] The charges were as follows:

Pertuduhan Pertama

Bahawa kamu pada 13 April 2022 jam lebih kurang 1545 hrs di alamat rumah Lot.1417 Taman Menteri, 34850 Changkat Jering, dalam Daerah Taiping di dalam Negeri Perak telah bagi pihak diri kamu menanam tumbuhan jenis cannabis dari mana cannabis boleh diperolehi secara langsung dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan dibawah s 6B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum dibawah s 6B(3) Akta yang sama.

Hukuman dibawah s 6B (3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 jika disabitkan kesalahan hendaklah dipenjara seumur hidup dan disebat tidak kurang daripada enam sebatan

Pertuduhan Pindaan Kedua

Bahawa kamu pada 13 April 2022 jam lebih kurang 1545 hrs di alamat rumah Lot.1417 Taman Menteri, 34850 Changkat Jering, dalam Daerah Taiping di dalam Negeri Perak telah ada dalam kawalan kamu 13.77gram dadah berbahaya jenis cannabis. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Akta yang sama.

Hukuman di bawah Akta ini jika disabitkan kesalahan boleh dikenakan denda tidak lebih daripada dua puluh ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih daripada lima tahun penjara atau kedua-duanya sekali.

Pertuduhan Tambahan

Bahawa kamu pada 13 April 2022 jam lebih kurang 1545 hrs di alamat rumah Lot.1417 Taman Menteri, 34850 Changkat Jering, dalam Daerah Taiping di dalam Negeri Perak telah ada dalam kawalan kamu 0.98gram biji-biji tumbuhan jenis cannabis dimana cannabis boleh diperolehi. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Akta yang sama.

Hukuman Denda boleh sampai RM20,000.00 atau penjara sampai 5 tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.

[3] For the first charge of cultivating cannabis plant, the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment of 30 years from the date of arrest 13 April 2022 and 6 strokes of the rotan. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment from the date of arrest in regard to the charge of cannabis possession and another 2 years imprisonment for the additional charge of possession of cannabis seeds. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently from the date of arrest.

[4] For the record, since he was charged on 22 February 2022, the Appellant was granted numerous postponements to enable him to appoint counsel 40 to represent him due to the gravity of the offence. Trial was fixed on 17-20 January 2023. On 17 January 2023, he told the Court that he was a

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 Back to top