Pendakwa Raya v MOHD NAJID BIN HASAN

ka-45a-23-05-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 September 2025 • KA-45A-23-05/2023 • 21 min read
12 cases cited (0 SG, 12 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (4)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Illustrates how the failure of the raiding officer's credibility on the search and recovery can defeat a prima facie case at the close of the prosecution in a drug prosecution, even where drugs are said to be found in close proximity to the accused.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar, Kedah, is a ruling at the close of the prosecution case in a drug prosecution turning on the credibility of the raiding officer. The accused faced two charges: trafficking in 55.05 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and possession of 22.83 grams of methamphetamine under section 12(2) punishable under section 39A(1) of the same Act, both said to have been committed at a house in Changloon. The prosecution's narrative, given through its raiding officer, was that on receiving information about drug dealing at the house the officer observed it for a short while, entered through an unlocked door, and found the accused seated on the floor with two transparent plastic packets lying exposed about a foot away, and, on a physical search, recovered a further packet of suspected drugs from the pocket of the jeans the accused was wearing. The court, per Datuk Mohamad Abazafree bin Mohd Abbas J, found the raiding officer's evidence concerning the raid and the recovery of the exhibits not to be credible or reliable, so that the prosecution's narrative against the accused collapsed entirely, and there was no other evidence on which the court could rely to connect the recovered packets with the accused. The court also had regard to the question whether the source or informer evidence was protected under section 40 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Concluding that it would not be safe to call on the accused to enter his defence, the court ordered the accused to be discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case. The judgment is a useful illustration of how a failure in the credibility of the sole raiding officer's account of the search and recovery can be fatal to a prima facie case, even where drugs are said to have been found in close proximity to the accused.

Why was the accused discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case?

The court found the raiding officer's evidence about the raid and the recovery of the drug exhibits not credible or reliable, so the prosecution's narrative collapsed and there was nothing else to connect the recovered packets with the accused; it held it would not be safe to call the accused to enter his defence and discharged and acquitted him.

What role did the credibility of the raiding officer play?

The raiding officer was the source of the account of the search and the recovery of the packets found near and on the accused; because the court found that account not credible or reliable, and there was no other supporting evidence, the prima facie case failed even though the drugs were said to have been found in close proximity to the accused.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (12)

UK (1)
[1994] AC 156
MY (11)
[1987] 1 CLJ 250 [1987] 1 CLJ 540 [1993] 3 MLJ 1 [1993] 4 CLJ 1 [1995] 3 CLJ 1 [1997] 1 CLJ 233 [2009] 1 CLJ 717 [2009] 4 CLJ 245 [2009] 4 CLJ 737 [2010] 1 CLJ 17 [2019] 9 CLJ 69

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ka-45a-23-05-2023)