RAHAMAN MD MIZANUR v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the operation of the statutory trafficking presumption under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 where the drug weight exceeds the threshold, and the principle that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal against conviction and sentence for drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The appellant had been convicted after a full trial in the High Court of trafficking in cannabis, and sentenced to "penjara seumur hidup mulai dari tarikh tangkapan dan dua belas kali sebatan" (life imprisonment from the date of arrest and twelve strokes of the cane). The drugs, weighing 448 grams, had been found in the basket of the appellant's motorcycle after he was stopped by a security supervisor at a workers' hostel and detained by the police. On appeal, the Court affirmed that an appellate court retains the power to re-evaluate the evidence even where the High Court's grounds are not detailed. It rejected the appellant's account that he had been in the company of two other persons, finding on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that he was alone when detained, and treated his denial as a bare denial ("penafian kosong"). The Court held that the failure to call a Nepali security guard did not give rise to an adverse presumption, because he was not a material witness and the law does not require a particular number of witnesses to prove a fact. It also held that the absence of any overt act, or of drug traces on the appellant's body or clothing, did not negate possession and control, since the discovery of the drugs in the motorcycle basket established his knowledge. As the weight exceeded the statutory threshold, the presumption of trafficking applied, and the appellant had failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities or to raise a reasonable doubt. The Court dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence and maintained the sentence imposed by the High Court. The judgment illustrates the operation of the statutory trafficking presumption and the appellate approach to findings of fact in drug prosecutions.