Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) TENG WEI XIONG 2. ) XXXX

Case Significance

Illustrates the anatomy of a joint possession-and-trafficking case under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952: affirmative proof of possession triggers the section 37(da) presumption, and the court must then genuinely weigh even a weak defence against the standard of reasonable possibility.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru is a criminal trial in which two accused were jointly charged with a series of drug offences, and it turns on the proof of possession and the court's duty to weigh the defence. The Public Prosecutor (Pendakwa Raya) charged the two accused with trafficking in methamphetamine of some 75.79 grams under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, together with charges concerning cannabis under section 6, MDMA and ketamine under section 12(2), and the poison etizolam under section 9(1) of the Poisons Act 1952. Because the accused are natural persons named only as parties, this analysis refers to them by role and ordinal position.

On the prosecution case, the accused were seen leaving the premises; a padlock key to the small gate was found in the second accused's bag; the main front door was opened using the first accused's right index finger; and the room door was opened by the first accused using a PIN combination, with the drugs found in a drawer, a cupboard and under the bed inside that room. On that footing the court found a prima facie case, holding that the element of possession had been proved affirmatively and that the trafficking presumption under section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was engaged, so that the accused were called on to enter their defence.

The defence advanced included that the day of the incident was the first accused's first visit to the house and that he did not stay overnight or reside in the room where the drugs were found. In evaluating that defence, the court reaffirmed a cardinal principle: however weak a defence may appear, a trial judge — being a judge of both fact and law — must not brush it aside merely because the prosecution witnesses are believed, and where an accused offers an explanation consistent with innocence the court is duty bound to consider whether it might reasonably be true, even if not convinced of its truth, following Mat v PP and Mohamad Radhi. The judgment is a useful illustration of the anatomy of a joint possession-and-trafficking case: affirmative proof of possession triggers the section 37(da) presumption, and the court must then genuinely weigh the defence against the standard of reasonable possibility.