Pendakwa Raya v MOHD RUSDI BIN MD DESA

Case Significance

Illustrates how a broken chain of custody of the drug exhibits and two irreconcilable prosecution versions defeat a charge under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 at the prima facie stage, leading to a discharge and acquittal before the defence is called.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar concerns one of two charges of drug trafficking under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Act 234) tried together against the same accused. The charge addressed in this matter alleged that on 24 November 2020 the accused trafficked 46.5 grams of dangerous drugs, comprising 16.8 grams of heroin and 29.7 grams of monoacetylmorphines, in front of a house at Jalan Bukit Wang, Kampung Malau, Jitra. The decisive question at the close of the prosecution case was whether the prosecution had established a complete and unbroken chain of evidence in relation to the drug exhibits (rantaian keterangan barang kes), so as to prove that the drugs tendered in court were the same drugs seized from the accused and that they were in his possession. The court found that the prosecution's account disclosed two competing versions of material events, which cast doubt on the identity and handling of the exhibits, and that the investigation had not been carried out completely, leaving gaps in the chain that the prosecution could not close. Because possession could not be safely established, the statutory presumptions under the Act could not be invoked, and the court held that no prima facie case had been made out. Applying the prima-facie-case threshold explained in Balachandran v PP and PP v Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar, the court ordered the accused dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan (discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case) on this charge. The judgment is a useful illustration of how a broken chain of custody and two irreconcilable prosecution versions defeat a trafficking charge before any defence need be called. The court stressed that the integrity of the drug exhibits is the foundation of any trafficking prosecution, and that where the movement of the exhibits from seizure to analysis to court cannot be accounted for with certainty, the doubt must operate in the accused's favour even before the defence stage is reached.