Faizul Azwad Bin Abd Jalil & Anor v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Faizul Azwad Bin Abd Jalil

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• Two appellants, along with three others (one of whom died before trial and one who was discharged at the close of the prosecution case), were charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking in 48,184 grams of cannabis, read with section 34 of the Penal Code (common intention).
• The prosecution's case was that police surveillance observed the two appellants and a deceased co-accused arriving at a location in separate vehicles, positioning their cars alongside each other, and jointly unloading boxes later found to contain cannabis from a car boot before attempting to flee upon the police raid.
• At the High Court, both appellants were called to enter their defence, gave sworn denials of knowledge of the drugs and of acquaintance with each other and the deceased, but were convicted; the first appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and 14 strokes of whipping, while the second appellant received life imprisonment without whipping (applying section 289(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code).

• Whether a five-hour gap in the explained custody of the exhibits, between seizure and handover to the investigating officer, caused a break in the chain of evidence sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drug exhibits.
• Whether the investigating officer's destruction of the original outer cardboard boxes (without court order), after photographing them and individually marking the drug bundles, gave rise to an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 or otherwise undermined the integrity/identity of the exhibits.
• Whether the elements of possession (physical and mental), knowledge, and common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code were sufficiently proven to trigger and sustain the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and whether the appellants' bare denials were sufficient to rebut that presumption.

• The Court held that the identity of the drugs was never genuinely disputed, and minor gaps in the chain of evidence (such as the five-hour period before handover) do not automatically create reasonable doubt where there is otherwise overwhelming evidence of identity, following established authority that the chain need not be perfect in every detail.
• The Court found that the destruction of the deteriorated original outer boxes did not compromise the integrity of the 50 individually marked drug bundles, as this was reasonably explained by the investigating officer, supported by photographic evidence, and did not attract an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
• The Court agreed with the trial judge that the coordinated arrival, positioning of vehicles, and joint handling of the drug-laden boxes by the appellants and the deceased established physical possession, knowledge, and common intention beyond reasonable doubt; the appeals were unanimously dismissed and both convictions and sentences were affirmed.