Pendakwa Raya v MOHD SOBRI BIN ABU BAKAR

Case Significance

Illustrates a conviction for drug possession under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 where the accused's account attributing the drugs to another person is rejected as a bare denial and an afterthought, with a concurrent custodial sentence.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar, Kedah concerns a charge of possession of a dangerous drug brought against the accused under subseksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (subsection 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under subsection 39A(1), one of three related charges tried together against the same accused arising from the events of the same night. Alongside this possession charge, the accused faced a further possession charge and a charge of trafficking heroin, all heard in a single trial. The accused's defence across the charges was that he did not have possession of the drugs and that they had been left in his car by a friend who had earlier borrowed it. The court examined whether the prosecution had established the elements of possession, including the accused's knowledge and control of the drug, and whether the defence raised a reasonable doubt. It found the defence to be a bare denial and an afterthought, a fabrication that did not withstand scrutiny and that had not been raised at the proper stage in the manner the law requires of an account attributing the drugs to a third party. After a full trial the court was satisfied that the possession charge had been proved and convicted the accused. On sentence, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors advanced and the principle that public interest is a paramount consideration in offences involving dangerous drugs, the court imposed two years' imprisonment from the date of arrest together with three strokes of the cane on this charge, ordering the term of imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences on the other charges. The judgment is a useful illustration of a conviction for drug possession where the accused's account attributing the drugs to another person is rejected as an afterthought. The decision illustrates that where several charges arising from a single incident are tried together, the same rejected defence may support convictions on each, with the resulting terms ordered to run concurrently.