JUDGMENT

Avinder Singh Gill JC:

At The Close Of The Prosecution's Case

A. Introduction

[1] This Judgment concerns a Charge under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) 1952, read with s 34 of the Penal Code against the accused persons for trafficking of 243.52 grams of Methamphetamine at a house located at No 4-A Merak, Jalan Pulai Harmoni 1, Bandar Baru Kangkar Pulai, Johor Bahru on 16 January 2022.

[2] The Prosecution closed its case on 23 January 2026, and pursuant to s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), this court now delivers its decision on whether the Prosecution has made out a prima facie case, s 180 CPC reads:

"Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution

(1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused,

(2) If the court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the court shall record an order of acquittal,

(3) If the court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged, the court shall call upon the accused to enter on his defence.

(4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction."

[3] All parties have filed their written submissions, and these have been perused and evaluated by this court together with the witness statements and the notes of proceedings.

[4] This is yet another case about the scourge of drugs in Malaysia. The fight against this scourge continues daily. The courts are where the battle unfolds, and it is to the Courts that the prosecution and defence look to deliver justice in accordance with the rules and principles of law applicable to every set of facts.

Issue For Determination

[5] The core issue for determination is whether the Prosecution has made out a prima facie case against either or both accused persons, such that they ought to be called upon to enter their Defence.

[6] In criminal proceedings, the Prosecution bears the ultimate burden of proving every element of a Charge beyond reasonable doubt. At the close of the Prosecution's case, the court applies the prima facie test: whether the Prosecution's evidence, if accepted as true, establishes each essential ingredient of the offence. The Defence is under no obligation to rebut the evidence at this stage. If the prima facie threshold is not met, the Accused must be acquitted and discharged.

[7] Section 180 of the CPC has been explained in a variety of cases. The test to employ at this stage is to undertake a maximum evaluation of all the evidence tendered by the Prosecution, and, if an Accused is called to enter his Defence, and he elects to remain silent, whether the court would convict the Accused on the totality of the evidence presented by the Prosecution. This was explained in Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP; [2003] 2 MLJ 65; [2003] 1 CLJ 734; [2003] 2 AMR 89, wherein Gopal Sri Ram JCA [as His Lordship then was] said:

"It therefore follows that there is only one exercise that a judge sitting alone under s 180 of the CPC has to undertake at the close of the prosecution case.

He must subject the prosecution evidence to maximum evaluation and to ask himself the question: if I decide to call upon the accused to enter his defence and he elects to remain silent, am I prepared to convict him on the totality of the evidence contained in the prosecution case? If the answer is in the negative, then no prima facie case has been made out, and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal."

[8] The above decision was affirmed by the Federal court in PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar; [2005] 6 MLJ 393; [2006] 1 CLJ 457; [2005] 6 AMR 203 @ para 14. The Federal court also laid out guidance for trial courts to observe when assessing whether a prima facie had been made out at the close of the