Md Zainudin bin Raujan vs Public Prosecutor

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 6062

FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)
ZAINUN ALI, FCJJ, ARIFIN ZAKARIA, CJ, ZULKEFLI, CJ, ABDULL HAMID EMBONG, J
Md Zainudin bin Raujan – Appellant
Versus
Public Prosecutor – Respondent

Advocates:
Hisyam Teh Poh Teik (Teh Poh Teik & Co) for the appellant.
Nurulhuda Nur’ Aini bt Mohamad Nor (Deputy Public Prosecutor, Attorney General’s Chambers) for the respondent.

Judgement Key Points

What is the standard for admitting or excluding a section 27 Information from the Evidence Act 1950 and its effect on fairness of trial? What is the proper approach to assessing the credibility of a single police witness under s 134 Evidence Act 1950 in a trafficking case? What are the limits on appellate interference with a trial court’s findings on witness credibility and factual determinations in drug trafficking cases under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952?

Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the standard for admitting or excluding a section 27 Information from the Evidence Act 1950 and its effect on fairness of trial?

What is the proper approach to assessing the credibility of a single police witness under s 134 Evidence Act 1950 in a trafficking case?

What are the limits on appellate interference with a trial court’s findings on witness credibility and factual determinations in drug trafficking cases under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952?

Hasan Lah FCJ

(delivering judgment of the court):

INTRODUCTION

The appellant was charged with three counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a)Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘the Act’)s 39B(2)

At the end of the trial the appellant was convicted on all the three charges and sentenced to death.

The appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said convictions by the High Court was dismissed. Hence the present appeal to this court.

BACKGROUND FACTS

At the close of the case for the prosecution, the narrative of the trial judge’s finding of facts may be unfolded as follows.

Acting on information DSP Teng Chan Chew (‘PW5’) and his party raided a house at No 503, Jalan Parit Jalil, Tongkang Pechah, Batu Pahat and arrested the appellant who was then brought back to Balai Polis Tongkang Pechah. In the course of interrogation the appellant admitted to PW5 that he had kept drugs in the ‘kawasan kebun’ (orchard) behind his father’s house at No SBB 49, Sungai Balang Besar, Muar.

PW5 then administered the statutory caution under s 37Athe appellant and thereafter reduced the said information into writing on a piece of paper tendered as exh P17 pursuant to s 27Evidence Act 1950

PW5 and h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document