Mohd Izad bin Matap v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Mohd Izad Bin Matap

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) and two counts of possession of dangerous drugs under section 12(2) of the DDA.
• The appellant was arrested at approximately 1.30 a.m. on 19 July 2021, found alone on a motorcycle with a backpack containing 282.52g of cannabis and quantities of methamphetamine.
• The High Court found the appellant guilty on all charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment and twelve strokes of whipping for trafficking, and three years' imprisonment with three strokes of whipping for each possession offence.

• Whether the High Court erred in its evaluation of the defence evidence, particularly regarding material contradictions between the appellant's testimony and his witness's (SD2) account, and the reliability of SD2's statutory declaration (D22).
• Whether the High Court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider D22 under section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code, or by drawing improper adverse inferences against the defence.
• Whether the prosecution's case contained inherent improbabilities or lacunae, such as the timeline of events or the failure to produce a specific police report, warranting an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.

• The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that the contradictions in the defence, particularly between the appellant's and SD2's testimonies and SD2's prior plea of guilt, were material and rendered the defence unreliable.
• The Court found no misdirection in the High Court's treatment of D22, reiterating that section 182A CPC requires the Court to *consider* all evidence, not necessarily to *accept* it, and its rejection was for sound and cogent reasons.
• The Court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the material facts established custody, control, and knowledge of the drugs, and the defence failed to raise any reasonable doubt, thus dismissing the appeals and affirming the conviction and sentence.