Pendakwa Raya v MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA

Case Significance

Illustrates the composite nature of possession in drug offences, requiring both control and knowledge, and how a reasonable doubt raised at the defence stage on either element defeats a case resting on the statutory presumption.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is one of a set of related drug prosecutions against two accused heard together, arising from drugs recovered from a home and a vehicle, and this file concerns another charge against the first accused under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The charges in the group engaged seksyen 39B and seksyen 12(2) (sections 39B and 12(2)) of the Act and the possession presumption in section 37(d). The feature that governs the outcome in this file, as in its companions, is that the essential element of possession is composed not only of physical custody or control but also of knowledge, and that the prosecution's reliance on a statutory presumption does not relieve it of the consequences if the accused, at the close of the defence, raises a reasonable doubt on any of those components. The court's reasoning focused on knowledge and control in relation to drugs found away from the accused's person, in a residential unit and a vehicle, and on whether the accused's account and the evidence as a whole left a reasonable doubt about his awareness of and dominion over the drugs. The court also had regard to the manner in which the investigation and the seizure had been conducted, and to whether the failure to adduce material evidence or call material witnesses left the prosecution's account of custody and knowledge incomplete, a matter that can attract an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. Having evaluated the totality of the evidence at the defence stage, the court concluded that the defence had succeeded in rebutting the presumption under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, so that the prosecution had not established possession beyond reasonable doubt. The court accordingly discharged and acquitted the first accused on the charge under this file. The judgment is a useful illustration of the composite nature of possession in drug offences, requiring both control and knowledge, and of how a reasonable doubt raised at the defence stage on either element defeats a case that rests on the statutory presumption.