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

2025 MarsdenLR 2979

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK SANDAKAN
PP – Appellant
Versus
JABRIN ADDIN – Respondent
[Criminal Case No: SDK-45A-1-7/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Risal Abd Fikkah Deputy ,Respondent Advocate: Majnah Abdillah

The court ruled that possession and knowledge of drugs are key elements for establishing trafficking, with statutory presumptions in drug offenses strongly affecting burden of proof. Accused's defense of innocence was insufficient to rebut these presumptions.

Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) and Section 37(da)(xvi) - Accused charged for trafficking in 327.6 grams of methamphetamine - Prosecution established prima facie case based on evidence of possession and knowledge - Police conducted surveillance leading to the arrest of the accused, who attempted to flee - Expert evidence confirmed substance as methamphetamine - Accused failed to prove he was an innocent carrier or rebut statutory presumption of trafficking. (Paras 1, 10, 31, 54)

Facts of the case:
The accused was apprehended on 2 January 2023 with 327.6 grams of methamphetamine found in a backpack. The police conducted surveillance after receiving a tip-off and witnessed the accused acting suspiciously. The drugs were confirmed by expert testimony. (Paras 3, 8, 9)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused; he did not rebut the presumption of trafficking as provided under the statute. (Paras 32, 52)

Issues: The court addressed whether the prosecution proved possession, knowledge of the drugs, and whether the accused was merely an innocent carrier. (Paras 21, 46, 47)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence showed possession and knowledge on the part of the accused, and his claims of being framed lacked credible support. (Paras 50, 52)

Result: Accused convicted of drug trafficking; sentenced to life imprisonment for thirty years and 12 strokes of whipping. (Paras 54, 55)

Table of Content
1. accused charged with drug trafficking. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. requirements for establishing a prima facie case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. argument regarding weight determination. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
4. identity of drugs confirmed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. prosecution must establish possession and knowledge. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
6. accusation of fleeing and evidential reliability. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. knowledge inferred from actions. (Para 29 , 30)
8. trafficking presumption based on drug weight. (Para 31 , 32)
9. defence testimony and claim of innocence. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
10. allegations of framing must be substantiated. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
11. failure to provide useful information on co-defendant. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
12. innocent carrier defence not substantiated. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
13. failure to rebut trafficking presumption. (Para 49 , 50)
14. prosecution case established beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 51 , 52)
15. court's final ruling and sentencing. (Para 53 , 54)
Celestina Stuel Galid J:

Introduction

[1] The accused was charged for trafficking in 327.6 grams of methamphetamine under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the DDA ").

[2] The charge reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu, pada 02 haribulan Januari 2023, jam lebih kurang 11.30 malam, bertempat di tepi Jalan Utara, Batu 3, di dalam daerah Sandakan, di dalam Negeri Sabah, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 327.6 gram 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 Prosecution's Narrative Of The Case

[3] Having received a tip-off earlier, on 2 January 2023, the raiding officer (PW4), assembled a team of police personnel and went to the location where the drug trafficking activity was said to occur at the entrance of the road leading to the squatters area at Jalan Utara, Batu 3, Sandakan.

[4] PW4 and his team arrived there at about 2315 hours and after about 10 minutes of surveillance, they saw a lone man acting suspiciously in that he was walking hurriedly from the squatters area towards the road while cautiously looking left and right. He was carrying a backpack on him.

[5] When PW4 and his team approached the man and stating that they were the police, he attempted to flee by going back from where he came from but was apprehended by PW4 and his team. PW4 identified the man in court as the accused.

[6] PW4 said he administered the caution under s 37B(1) of the DDA before he conducted a body search on the accused and checked the contents of the backpack which had the words "UNDER ARMOUR" written on it.

[7] In the backpack, PW4 found one black plastic bag which contained a multi coloured and clear plastic packet with the words "ZIP BAG" written on it which contained crystalline substances suspected to be methamphetamine. The backpack also contained a black bag with the words "MORE THAN PROTECTION" written on it containing the birth certificate of Jabrin bin Addin.

[8] The accused was later arrested and when the crystalline substances were sent for analysis at Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, they were confirmed to contain 327.6 grams of methamphetamine.

[9] The accused was later charged for drug trafficking.

Prima Prima Facie

[10] The law at the end of the prosecution's case is settled. The court is to subject the prosecution's evidence to a maximum evaluation to satisfy itself whether a prima facie case has been made out of the charge against the accused person so that the accused is to be called to answer and defend the charge - see s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code (" CPC "), PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar 2005 MarsdenLR 2061 ; 2005 MarsdenLR 2778 ; 2006 MarsdenLR 2923 ; , Balachandran v. PP 2004 MarsdenLR 804 ; 2005 MarsdenLR 2256 ; ; and Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP 2002 MarsdenLR 1240 ; 2003 MarsdenLR 1502 ; ; .

[11] The elements to be proved in the present case were:

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