JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor ("the Appellant") against the decision of the learned Magistrate, Puan Hidayatul Syuhada binti Shamsudin, of the Criminal Magistrates' Court , Johor Bahru, Johor, delivered on 23 June 2025. The learned Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the Respondent, Mohd Najib bin Mohamed Sidek, on a charge under s 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the DDA"). She accordingly acquitted and discharged the Respondent without calling him to enter his defence under s 173(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Her written Grounds of Judgment ("the Magistrates' Court GOJ') were delivered on 25 July 2025.

[2] The Appellant filed the present appeal seeking to reverse that order of acquittal and discharge, and to have the Respondent called to enter his defence.

[3] Having considered the record of appeal, the written submissions, the reply submissions of both parties, the Magistrates' Court Grounds of Judgment, and all the relevant authorities placed before this Court , I dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of acquittal and discharge. These are my grounds.

The Charge

[4] The charge preferred against the Respondent, as amended (Lampiran B), read as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 15 Oktober 2021 jam lebih kurang 5.45 petang, bertempat di Pejabat Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik Daerah Johor Bahru Selatan di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam negeri Johor, telah didapati memberikan dadah berbahaya jenis Amphetamine dan Methamphetamine ke dalam diri kamu sendiri. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 15(1) Akta yang sama."

[5] The offence carries a maximum punishment of a fine not exceeding RM5,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding two years, and a supervision order of not less than two years and not more than three years.

Background Of Proceedings

[6] The Respondent was originally charged before the Magistrates' Court , Johor Bahru under case No JA-82D-58-12/2021 with an offence under s 15(1)(a) of the DDA. The prosecution called three witnesses in that earlier proceeding: SP1 (Pn Deviga a/P Balakersnan, pathologist), SP2 (Pn Afiqah binti Pendi, laboratory technologist), and SP3 (Kpl Muhammad Hairul bin Tumin, escort officer). On 8 November 2023, when the prosecution sought an adjournment because they were not ready with the prosecution witnesses, the learned Magistrate declined to grant the adjournment and instead ordered the case to be disposed of by way of Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal.

[7] A fresh charge was thereafter filed under case No JA-82D-14-03/2024, bearing the same offence. Pursuant to s 254A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution applied to adopt the evidence adduced in the earlier proceedings, and leave was duly granted by the learned Magistrate on 17 February 2025. On 28 May 2025, SP5 (Insp Muzzamer bin Mohd Rasid) testified and the prosecution closed its case. On 23 June 2025, the learned Magistrate found that no prima facie case had been established and ordered the Respondent to be acquitted and discharged.

The Prosecution Case

[8] The prosecution called five witnesses. SP1 was Pn Deviga a/p Balakersnan, a Biochemistry Science Officer Grade C44 attached to the Department of Pathology, Hospital Sultanah Aminah, Johor Bahru, with some 14 years of service and 12 years of experience in the analysis of drugs in urine specimens. In her written witness statement (WSSP1), she stated that on 17 October 2021 she received one urine specimen bottle bearing serial number B078058, together with two copies of the urine drug test request form, both bearing laboratory reference number 10513651, from SP2. She verified the name, identity card number, bottle serial number, laboratory reference number, the condition of the bottle (which remained sealed), and the sufficiency of the urine specimen. The bottle was then