Mohd Ali bin Bahar & Anor v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s):

• Mohd Ali Bin Bahar
• Musliadi Bin Ali

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 appellants were apprehended by police at a jetty after the second appellant threw a bag containing 1,368.8 grams of methamphetamine into the sea and both attempted to flee.
• The High Court convicted the appellants of drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, sentencing them to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the whip.
• The appellants appealed the conviction, contending they were "innocent carriers" acting on the instructions of a third party and that their cautioned statements were not voluntarily signed.

• Whether the prosecution’s failure to call or investigate a third party and his wife, as identified in the appellants' cautioned statements, necessitated an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
• Whether the Court could safely infer knowledge and common intention based on the appellants' conduct during the arrest and the admissions made in their cautioned statements.
• Whether the appellants' subsequent denial of their signatures on the cautioned statements was sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the voluntariness and authenticity of those statements.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that no adverse inference could be drawn because the appellants failed to provide sufficient material particulars (full name, address, or phone number) to enable the investigation of the alleged third party.
• The Court affirmed that knowledge and common intention were established through the appellants' conduct—specifically the act of throwing the bag into the sea and attempting to flee—and their explicit admissions in cautioned statements that they knew the bag contained "batu" (syabu).
• The Court held the cautioned statements were admissible and voluntary, noting the appellants themselves had tendered the documents and failed to challenge the investigating officer's testimony regarding the signatures during cross-examination.