1. Drug trafficking charge — Possession of methamphetamine — Presumption of knowledge and trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 1249
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
KAN WENG HIN, J
PP – Appellant
Versus
WONG MING YANG – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: JA-45A-34-04/2021]
Physical custody and control of drugs trigger the presumption of knowledge under Section 37(d) DDA. An accused fails to rebut this presumption if they exhibit 'wilful blindness' by failing to make inquiries into suspicious circumstances surrounding the goods they are transporting.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a), 37(d), and 37(da) - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Possession and Knowledge - To constitute possession, there must be both physical custody or control (actus reus) and knowledge of the nature of the drug (mens rea) (Paras 13-14) - In the absence of direct evidence of knowledge, the court may draw reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances (Para 18) - Where custody or control is proven, the presumption of possession and knowledge under Section 37(d) may be invoked, but the presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) should not be automatically applied if there is doubt regarding actual knowledge, to avoid double presumptions (Paras 40-47).
(B) Evidence Act - Section 8 and Section 114(g) - Relevance of conduct - The conduct of an accused in providing identification and waiting calmly at a courier counter may be consistent with that of an innocent carrier (Para 39).
(C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 425 - Power of court to summon and examine persons - The court possesses broad discretion to examine any person at any stage of proceedings if their evidence is essential to a just decision, including allowing an accused to give sworn testimony after closing the defence if necessary to rebut statutory presumptions (Paras 54-61).
(D) Wilful Blindness - When circumstances are such as to arouse suspicion, the accused is incumbent to make necessary inquiries - Failure to do so, when the accused has the opportunity to inspect the item, constitutes wilful blindness, and the accused is deemed to have knowledge of the contents (Paras 68-69).
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested at a courier office while attempting to ship a sealed box containing a milk powder container which further concealed packets of Methamphetamine weighing 352.35 grams. The accused claimed to be an innocent carrier who collected the parcel from a third party and was unaware of its contents. Three individuals identified by the accused were subsequently arrested, and similar drugs were found at their residence.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution established the accused's physical custody and control of the drugs. While the accused claimed to be a passive carrier, the court found that he had knowledge of the presence of drugs at the location where he collected the parcel. His failure to inquire about the contents of the box despite suspicious circumstances amounted to wilful blindness.
Issues: Whether the accused had knowledge and custody of the drugs; whether a break existed in the chain of evidence; and whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge under Section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while physical custody was clear, the element of knowledge was established through the doctrine of wilful blindness. Since the accused knew of the presence of drugs at the source and failed to inspect the parcel, he cannot claim to be an innocent carrier. The presumption under Section 37(d) was not rebutted on a balance of probabilities.
Result: Convicted under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The accused claimed to be an innocent carrier without knowledge of the drugs; the prosecution contended possession and knowledge were established. (Para 15 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 63 )
3. Conviction for drug trafficking — Life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping imposed. (Para 72 , 73 )
4. What constitutes 'possession' of dangerous drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952?
Possession requires both physical custody or control (actus reus) and knowledge of the drug (mens rea), proven by direct or circumstantial evidence or statutory presumption. (Para 13 , 14 , 21 )
5. When does the presumption of knowledge under s 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 apply?
Once the prosecution proves custody or control of a thing containing dangerous drugs, the accused is presumed to have possession and knowledge of the drug's nature, unless the contrary is proved. (Para 40 , 41 )
6. What is the defence of passive carrier in a drug trafficking case?
A passive carrier claims no knowledge of the drugs and merely transports them. To rebut the presumption of trafficking, the accused must show his conduct was inconsistent with trafficking. (Para 22 , 23 )
7. What is the standard for establishing a prima facie case for drug trafficking?
The prosecution must adduce sufficient evidence on every legal ingredient, including custody, control, and knowledge, to warrant the accused being called to enter a defence. (Para 8 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 )
8. Can a court allow a defence witness after the accused has closed his case?
Yes, under s 425 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court has discretion to summon or examine any person at any stage if the evidence is essential to a just decision. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 )
JUDGMENT
[1] Wong Ming Yang (NRIC: 951001-01-6789) was arrested on 18 May 2020 and charged with trafficking 352.35 gram of Methamphetamine under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
Charge (P2)
[2] Bahawa kamu dituduh dengan kehendak Pendakwa Raya dan pertuduhan terhadap kamu dibacakan seperti berikut:
"Bahawa kamu pada 18 May 2020 jam lebih kurang 6.00pm di bertempat di alamat Kaunter Pejabat City Link Express Skudai di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim telah mengedar dadah berbahaya berat bersih 352.35 gram iaitu Methamphetamine. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."
Summary Of The Prosecution Case
[3] On 18 May 2020, at approximately 6.00pm, Insp Nazarul Izwan bin Abdul Manaf (SP3) and his men from the Police Station Ibu Pejabat Daerah, Johor Bahru Selatan, acting on information went to the Skudai branch of the Citi-Link Express courier office.
[4] Upon arriving at the office, they saw the accused at the counter accompanied by a Citi-Link staff member, Nooridayu binti Samsir (SP4). After identifying himself as a Police Officer, SP3 proceeded to arrest the accused. A subsequent body search of the accused revealed no incriminating items
[5] In the presence of the accused, SP3 opened a sealed box (P5A) that the accused had intended to ship. Inside the box was a milk powder container branded 'Enfalac' (exh P5B). Further inspection of the container revealed 2 aluminium packets (P5C) and (P5D). Inside P5C, SP3 discovered a clear plastic packet (AZ5) containing a crystalline powder suspected to be drugs while P5D contained milk powder.
[6] Consequently, the accused was arrested in accordance with s 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). On the accused, SP3 discovered the following items namely;
i. City-Link Express acknowledgement receipt no:960307813030847, marked as E from the box marked A.
ii. City-Link Express invoice consignment note no:960307813030847, marked as F from the box marked A.
iii. One handphone iPhone 11, marked as G.
iv. One pink hello kitty bag, marked as H, containing as below;
v. One access card for Raffles Suite marked as I.
vi. ATM card for Hong Leong Islamic Bank no:5315 9100 0610 6925, marked as J.
vii. A set car keys together with the remote control for a white Perodua with the registration number W1363E, marked as K, attached to the pink Hello Kitty bag
viii. Class B2 and D driving license under the name of Wong Ming Yang, marked as L.
ix. and a white Perodua Myvi with registration number W1363E.
[7] The accused together with the seized impugned drugs and items was brought to the Police Station IPD Johor Bahru. The items and impugned drugs were duly recorded and acknowledged by the accused in the search list (exh P12). A police report was lodged by SP3 as exh P11. Subsequently on 19 May 2020, these items and impugned drugs were delivered to the Investigating Officer Insp Aizat Zulfadli bin Hassan (SP5) and recorded in the handover list (exh P13).
[8] At the close of the prosecution case, based on maximum evaluation of the credible evidence and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, I had to decide whether a prima facie case under s 180 of CPC had been made out against the accused. See the oft-cited case of Balachandran v. PP ; [2005] 2 MLJ 301; [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 1 AMR 321 (FC) and Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP ; [2003] 2 MLJ 65; [2003] 1 CLJ 734; [2003] 2 AMR 89 (CA).
[9] The issues which I had to decide are as follows:
i. whether the impugned drugs seized on 18 May 2020 are dangerous drugs as listed in the 1st Schedule Part III of s 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA);
ii. whether the accused was in possession of the drugs, namely the accused had knowledge and custody or control of the drugs;
iii. whether there was a break in the chain of evidence as presented by the prosecution;
iv. whether the prosecution had successfully made out a prima facie case against the accused accord
