Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMMAD ASYRUL IMAN BIN OSMAN

Case Significance

Illustrates how a section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 trafficking case can fail at the close of the defence where the accused raises a reasonable doubt on custody, control and knowledge, particularly where the drugs are found concealed in premises he does not occupy.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar sets out the grounds for the acquittal of an accused charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs. The accused was charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952), punishable under section 39B(2), with trafficking in 492.8 grams of methamphetamine, the drugs having been found in a rented room in Langkawi. At the close of the prosecution case the Court found that a prima facie case had been made out and called on the accused to enter his defence. The accused gave sworn evidence and called two further witnesses. His defence was that the room in which the drugs were found was not his, and the evidence of his witnesses was consistent with and supportive of that account. At the close of the defence the Court was satisfied that the accused had raised a reasonable doubt on the element of possession — that is, on custody, control and knowledge of the drugs. It found the defence version, that the drugs had been found not on the floor but in a black bag inside a cupboard in the room, to be a reasonable possibility, and considered it reasonable that a person merely staying temporarily in another's premises would not rummage through or examine the contents of a cupboard. Re-evaluating the prosecution evidence in light of the questionable circumstances in which the bag of drugs was found, and the absence of any clear evidence of the accused's reaction when the drugs were discovered, the Court concluded that it was left in doubt whether the accused truly had control of and knowledge of the seized drugs. Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted and discharged the accused. The judgment records that the prosecution was dissatisfied with that outcome, but the Court's reasoning rested squarely on the reasonable doubt that the defence evidence, taken with the questionable circumstances of the seizure, had raised on the essential element of possession.