Abdul Aziz bin Yahya & Anor v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s):

• Abd Aziz Bin Yahya
• Ramizah Binti Rahmat (Pg Pada 23.12.2021)

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• A married couple were convicted after a full trial on multiple charges of possession and trafficking of dangerous drugs (Methamphetamine and Heroin) under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, following a police raid on their family home in Felda Bukit Aping Timur, Kota Tinggi, where various quantities of drugs were seized from the living room and rear bedroom.
• The High Court found both appellants guilty on all charges at the close of the defence case, sentencing them to life imprisonment and whipping on the trafficking charges, with concurrent imprisonment terms for the possession charges (whipping was exempted under s. 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
• The appellants appealed against conviction only, raising two main grounds: (1) breaks in the chain of custody and identity of the drug exhibits; and (2) failure by the prosecution to establish exclusive possession and control over the areas where the drugs were found.

• Whether there were material discrepancies in the movement, weight, and marking of the drug exhibits that broke the chain of evidence, thereby raising reasonable doubt as to the identity of the exhibits tendered in court.
• Whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of excluding the possibility of access by third parties to the areas where the drugs were found, so as to establish custody, control, and knowledge of the drugs against the appellants.

• The Court held that the chain of custody was intact and unbroken — the prosecution witnesses' testimony was consistent and mutually corroborative, weight discrepancies between the raiding officer's field estimates and the chemist's laboratory analysis did not affect exhibit identity, and the unique laboratory numbering system excluded any risk of cross-contamination with other cases.
• On possession, the Court held that the prosecution had sufficiently established custody, control, and knowledge: drugs in the living room were found in close physical proximity to the first appellant, while drugs in the rear bedroom were found openly on the dressing table in the bedroom occupied by both appellants; the defence's claim of access by relatives and workshop workers was unsupported by credible evidence and amounted to a bare denial.
• The Court unanimously dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence, finding no merit warranting appellate intervention, as the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt against the prosecution's case or to rebut the trafficking presumption under s. 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 on a balance of probabilities.