Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) ROSLAN BIN MOHD HUSSIAH 2. ) VINOD KUMAR A/L AROKIADASS

Case Significance

Illustrates the balancing of public interest and the presumption of innocence in assessing a prima facie case, with both accused acquitted at the close of the prosecution for failure to make out the trafficking charges.

This High Court decision at Temerloh, Pahang concerns two accused jointly charged by the Pendakwa Raya (the Public Prosecutor) with drug trafficking. They faced two charges under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) read with seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code), the first alleging trafficking of 200.5 grams of heroin and monoacetylmorphines and the second alleging trafficking of 1,478.6 grams of methamphetamine, both said to have occurred with common intention at a police auxiliary guard post on the road up to Genting Highlands. The prosecution called seven witnesses before closing its case. The decisive issue was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused at the close of its evidence. The court set out the balance it had to strike: it must scrutinise the evidence to ensure compliance with the law of evidence and criminal procedure, and material contradictions cannot simply be set aside in order to convict, but immaterial contradictions that do not amount to non-compliance with the law or cause a miscarriage of justice should not be seized upon as a thin excuse to acquit, since acquitting on flimsy grounds would undermine the public interest and society's assurance of safety from crime, all while recognising that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution and the accused's fundamental liberty is at stake. On the evidence before it, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case and ordered both accused dibebas dan dilepaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri (acquitted and discharged without being called to enter a defence). The judgment illustrates the careful balancing of public interest and the presumption of innocence when assessing a prima facie case at the close of the prosecution. The acquittal reflects that a prima facie case requires evidence capable of sustaining a conviction if unrebutted, not merely material raising suspicion against the accused.