Aizuddin Bin Azizan & Anor v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Mohd Firdaus Bin Ismail

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz

• The appellants were arrested during a police surveillance operation after the first appellant was observed exiting his vehicle and approaching the second appellant’s vehicle; subsequent searches of both vehicles revealed significant quantities of cannabis.
• In the first appellant’s vehicle, a sling bag containing drugs also held his identification card, while the second appellant was found alone in a vehicle containing over five kilograms of cannabis.
• The defense alleged a malicious conspiracy, claiming the investigating officer was having an affair with the second appellant’s wife and had framed the appellants to facilitate a subsequent marriage between the officer and the spouse.

• Whether the trial judge failed to conduct a maximum evaluation of the defense, specifically regarding the inherent improbability of an accused placing his identification card in a bag containing dangerous drugs.
• Whether the chain of custody was compromised by an eight-day interval between the preparation of exhibits by the investigating officer and their delivery to the Chemistry Department for analysis.
• Whether the prosecution’s failure to provide corroborative evidence, such as fingerprints, DNA, or the identification of vehicle keys by the registered owner, was fatal to the proof of possession and control.

• The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that an appellate Court should be slow to disturb a trial judge’s findings on witness credibility unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to disagree.
• The Court held that the chain of custody was sufficiently established through consistent markings and documentation, ruling that the prosecution is not legally required to call every intermediary officer who handled the exhibits.
• The Court found the conspiracy defense to be a mere denial unsupported by evidence, as phone records confirmed the relationship between the investigating officer and the spouse only commenced after the date of the arrest.