Pendakwa Raya v MOHD RUSDI BIN MD DESA

Case Significance

Illustrates that even a large drug seizure will not sustain a charge under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 where the chain of custody is broken and the investigation is incomplete, so that no prima facie case is made out and the accused is acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar concerns the second 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. This charge alleged the trafficking of a substantially larger quantity, namely 1,134.5 grams of methamphetamine. As with the companion charge, the central issue at the close of the prosecution case was whether the prosecution had proved an unbroken chain of evidence in respect of the drug exhibits (rantaian keterangan barang kes) and whether the investigation conducted had been complete and reliable enough to establish that the accused was in possession of the drugs. The court identified two competing versions in the prosecution's own evidence concerning how the exhibits were handled, and found that the investigation left material questions unanswered, so that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs could not be established beyond the doubt required at this stage. The larger quantity did not cure these deficiencies, because the quantity is relevant only once possession and the identity of the exhibits are proved. Since possession was not made out, the statutory presumption of trafficking could not be relied upon. Applying the prima-facie-case standard as expounded in Balachandran v PP, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case on this charge as well, and ordered the accused dilepas dan dibebaskan (discharged and acquitted) at the close of the prosecution case. The judgment is a useful illustration that even a very large seizure will not sustain a trafficking charge where the chain of custody is broken and the investigation is shown to be incomplete. The court underscored that its duty at the close of the prosecution case was to subject the evidence to maximum evaluation, and that conflicting accounts left unexplained by the investigating officers meant the prosecution had not crossed the threshold at which the accused could properly be called to answer the charge.