Che Abdullah Bin Che Sulaiman v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Che Abdullah Bin Che Sulaiman

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was charged with trafficking in 73.90 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, after police found the drugs in an accessible compartment of a car he was driving alone, along with his personal documents.
• At the High Court trial, the appellant gave a sworn defence claiming he was waiting to meet a friend to collect a debt, denied knowledge of the drugs, and alleged the vehicle search was never conducted in his presence, though he admitted he was the sole occupant and regular user of the car.
• The trial judge convicted the appellant, finding the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Act had been raised and not rebutted, and sentenced him to life imprisonment (30 years from arrest) and 12 strokes of whipping; he appealed against both conviction and sentence.

• Whether the prosecution's opening statement, which referred to an incorrect section for the presumption to be invoked, caused prejudice to the defence and undermined the prima facie finding.
• Whether a discrepancy between the net weight of drugs stated in the chemist's report (73.90g) and the weight derivable from the chemist's oral evidence on purity percentage (78.99g) created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drug exhibit or broke the chain of evidence.
• Whether the prosecution had proven possession, custody, control and knowledge of the drugs on the part of the appellant to sustain the statutory presumption of trafficking, and whether the appellant's defence raised a reasonable doubt.

• The Court held that the prosecution is not strictly bound by its opening statement, and that any typographical/referential error regarding the statutory presumption did not cause any failure of justice, as the appellant had full opportunity to challenge the evidence and cross-examine witnesses at trial.
• The Court found the discrepancy in drug weight to be immaterial since both figures exceeded the statutory minimum threshold for triggering the presumption of trafficking, and held that a weight discrepancy alone does not ipso facto cast doubt on the identity of the exhibit absent any break in the chain of evidence.
• The Court affirmed that possession need not be "exclusive" in the sense of sole occupancy being disproved, and upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant's custody, control, and knowledge were established through direct evidence (location of drugs, presence of personal items, guilty demeanour), rendering the defence's version an afterthought; the appeal against conviction and sentence was unanimously dismissed, with the sentence held to be the minimum prescribed by law.