Mohd Sah bin Jainuddin v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Mohd Sah Bin Jainuddin

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 appellant was apprehended by police after being observed behaving suspiciously in an area known for drug trafficking; a search of a sling bag worn by the appellant revealed 102.31 grams of methamphetamine.
• At trial, the appellant alleged a frame-up, claiming he was merely collecting a bag for a third party and was arrested while inside a vehicle, though police witnesses testified he was alone and attempted to flee.
• The High Court held that the prosecution proved actual possession, thereby invoking the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which the appellant failed to rebut on a balance of probabilities.

• Whether the prosecution established the element of "knowledge" beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether such knowledge could be legally inferred from the appellant's pre-arrest conduct and attempt to flee.
• Whether the absence of forensic evidence (fingerprints or DNA) and the failure to call specific independent witnesses or produce a sketch plan warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
• Whether the failure to administer a statutory caution under section 37B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 rendered the evidence of the appellant’s conduct inadmissible or the conviction unsafe.

• The Court held that knowledge was properly inferred from the appellant’s cumulative conduct, specifically his suspicious behavior prior to the arrest and his physical struggle to escape when approached by police officers.
• The Court affirmed that forensic evidence is merely corroborative and its absence is not fatal when direct evidence of possession is credible; furthermore, no adverse inference was drawn as the prosecution has the discretion to call only witnesses necessary to prove the essential elements of the charge.
• The Court ruled that "conduct" (such as fleeing or a scuffle) does not constitute a "statement" under section 37B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, meaning the absence of a statutory caution did not affect the admissibility of the arrest circumstances or the safety of the conviction.