Abdulbasit Bin Baddun v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Abdulbasit Bin Baddun

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

• The appellant was charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking 129.40 grams of methamphetamine found in a backpack he was carrying at Kampung Ranggu, Tawau, and was convicted after a full trial and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment (from date of arrest) with 15 strokes of whipping.
• Police surveillance officers observed the appellant sitting alone near an unnumbered house for about 20 minutes before approaching him; he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued, and a search of his backpack revealed the drugs alongside his personal documents (birth certificate and school letter).
• The appellant's defence was that he had been framed by police, claiming the drugs were planted by the arresting officer, and that two other individuals (Somo and Acho) were present at the scene but fled without being pursued or identified by police.

• Whether the prosecution had proven, to the standard required for a prima facie case, the identity and weight of the drugs, possession, and trafficking, including whether any break in the chain of evidence undermined the chemist's findings.
• Whether the High Court correctly evaluated the defence's version of events (frame-up allegation) under section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and whether the appellant had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 on a balance of probabilities.
• Whether the sentence imposed (life imprisonment, deemed as 30 years, and 15 strokes of whipping) was appropriate given the absence of evidence of buying and selling, per section 39B(2A) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

• The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had meticulously and correctly evaluated the evidence on identity, weight, and possession of the drugs, and had properly applied the statutory presumption of trafficking based on the proven weight of the drugs.
• The Court found no break in the chain of evidence, noting that any gaps identified by the defence occurred after the drugs had already been analysed by the chemist and were adequately explained by the prosecution witnesses.
• The Court held that the High Court had correctly rejected the appellant's frame-up defence as not credible, having noted material inconsistencies and unproven allegations that were never put to prosecution witnesses, and accordingly affirmed both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the High Court.