Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) MOHD NAZRI BIN MOHD NORAZMI SEGAR 2. ) ZULSAHFARIN BIN MUHD YUSOF 3. ) MOHD ZULKIFLI BIN AZMI

Case Significance

A drug-trafficking prosecution ending in acquittal at the close of the prosecution case, mere presence at the premises being insufficient to prove possession or invoke the trafficking presumption.

This High Court decision concerns a charge of drug trafficking tried against three accused, and the Court's ruling at the close of the prosecution's case. The prosecution alleged trafficking in a substantial quantity of cannabis discovered during a raid on 29 June 2021, when a police team entered an apartment using keys seized from the first accused; cannabis was found in the bedrooms, including some 4,321 grams in a black bag inside a wardrobe. The first accused, who was also the tenant and had led the raiding team to the premises, died before the close of the case, leaving the second and third accused, who had been found sitting in the living room.

At the close of the prosecution case the Court was required, under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to decide whether a prima facie case had been made out. On a maximum evaluation of the evidence, it held that the prosecution had failed to prove the mens rea of possession against the remaining accused. The evidence showed no more than that the second and third accused were present at the premises; mere presence, without proof of knowledge and control of the drugs, does not establish possession, and without possession the statutory presumption of trafficking could not be invoked against them.

Having found no prima facie case, the Court acquitted and discharged the second and third accused at the close of the prosecution's case pursuant to section 180(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (read with section 180(1) and 180(4)). The judgment is a useful illustration of the maximum-evaluation test applied at the close of the prosecution case in a trafficking prosecution, and of the principle that mere presence at premises where drugs are found, without proof of knowledge and control, cannot support a finding of possession or trigger the trafficking presumption.