COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
HERLINA PURNAMA SARI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charge against the respondent for trafficking. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. burden of proof on prosecution to demonstrate possession and intent. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. evidence provided did not support trafficking claim. (Para 22 , 23 , 35) |
The Charge
[1] The person charged in this case is a 35 year old woman namely Herlina Purnama Sari, an Indonesian national (the respondent). She was charged in the following terms:
"Bahawa kamu pada 30 November 2012, lebih kurang jam 5.20 pagi di Kaunter Pendaftaran Masuk Penerbangan Antarabangsa No. R22, Terminal Pengangkutan Tambang Murah (LCCT), di dalam Daerah Sepang, dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu heroin seberat 303.4 gram dan monoacetylmorphines seberat 105.5 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."
Case For The Prosecution
[2] At the commencement of the prosecution's case, in her opening statement (Exhibit P4), the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) informed the court that the prosecution would seek to prove the offence with which the respondent was charged by
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.