Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) IZHAR BIN ABD SAMAD 2. ) OMAR BIN YAHYA

Case Significance

Illustrates that a joint charge of possessing a small quantity of drugs under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, read with section 34 of the Penal Code, is proved on the same possession and common-intention principles as the graver charges tried with it, and may attract a short concurrent custodial term.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns one of three charges tried together against two accused, all arising from a single arrest at a house in Taman Johor Jaya on 10 March 2021. While the companion charges concerned trafficking in methamphetamine, this charge was a joint charge against both accused of possessing a dangerous drug — monoacetylmorphines weighing 0.26 grams — an offence under seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 12(3), read with section 34 of the Penal Code for common intention. Because the three case numbers shared the same facts, arrest report, scene and exhibits, the court gave its reasons for all of them together.

Applying section 180(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court found at the close of the prosecution case that a prima facie case had been established against both accused on this possession charge as well as on the trafficking charges, and it called on them to enter their defence. Both gave sworn evidence, raising a defence of denial. At the close of the defence the court held that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt and that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and it convicted both accused.

On this possession charge the court sentenced both accused to one year's imprisonment from the date of arrest on 10 March 2021 under section 12(3) of the Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code, the term running concurrently with the life sentences imposed on the trafficking charges heard in the same trial. Because the exhibits and the evidence of possession overlapped across the charges, the court's findings on knowledge, custody and control applied equally here. The judgment illustrates that a joint possession charge for a small quantity of drugs is proved on the same possession elements and common-intention principles as the more serious charges heard with it.