Mohd Nazri bin Wahab & Anor v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s):

• Mohd Nazri Bin Wahab
• Wan Hamdan Bin Wan Hashim

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing

• The appellants were charged in the High Court with trafficking 54.52 grams of Monoacetylmorphines under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
• The prosecution's case was built on an agent provocateur (SP5) who engaged in two drug transactions with the second appellant, with the first appellant delivering the drugs in the second transaction.
• The defence denied involvement, claiming a frame-up, suggesting the drugs were found elsewhere (a workshop), and that a third party was involved, while the second appellant fled due to fear of a positive urine test from prior drug use.

• Whether the High Court erred in applying the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) DDA, given the prosecution's reliance on direct evidence of trafficking.
• Whether there were material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence that undermined the credibility of the agent provocateur and the overall case.
• Whether the High Court failed to judicially appreciate the defence evidence and the testimony of defence witnesses, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

• The Court affirmed the High Court's finding of a prima facie case and the correct application of the section 37(da) DDA presumption, as factual possession was proven, which is a prerequisite for invoking the presumption.
• The Court held that the alleged contradictions in the prosecution's case were not material and did not affect the core issue of drug possession or the credibility of the agent provocateur, reiterating that minor discrepancies are normal in witness testimony.
• The Court found that the High Court had thoroughly considered the defence, concluding it was a mere denial that failed to raise reasonable doubt or rebut the presumption, and rejected the "frame-up" theory due to lack of motive and contradictory evidence from police reports and the workshop owner.