Pendakwa Raya v MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA

Case Significance

Illustrates how the location of drugs in premises or a vehicle, rather than on the accused, shapes the possession inquiry and how a reasonable doubt about the accused's connection to that place defeats the statutory presumption of possession.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam belongs to a set of related drug prosecutions tried together against two accused, arising from drugs recovered from a residential unit and a vehicle, and this file concerns a further charge against the first accused. The charges across the linked files were laid under seksyen 39B and seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (sections 39B and 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952). What distinguishes the analysis in this group of cases is that the drugs were not found on the person of either accused but in two separate places, a home and a vehicle, so that the prosecution's case depended on linking the first accused to those locations and invoking the statutory presumption of possession that follows from custody or control of the place where drugs are found. The determinative stage was the close of the defence, at which the accused sought to displace that presumption. The court's reasoning centred on the frailty of the link between the first accused and the location of the drugs: where drugs are recovered from premises or a vehicle rather than from the accused himself, the strength of the possession inference depends on the quality of the evidence tying the accused to that place, and any reasonable doubt about that connection tells in the accused's favour. Having weighed the whole of the evidence, the court found that the defence had succeeded in rebutting the presumption under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, so that the element of possession was not made out to the required standard. The court accordingly discharged and acquitted the first accused on the charge under this file. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the location of drugs, in premises or a vehicle rather than on the accused, shapes the possession inquiry and how a reasonable doubt about that connection defeats the statutory presumption.