Mohd Syafie bin Zainal v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Mohd Syafie Bin Zainal

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Dato' Ahmad Shahrir B. Mohd Salleh

• The appellant and a co-accused were jointly charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs (36,376 grams of methamphetamine) under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, after drugs were found in a locked first room of a rented house during a police raid; the co-accused was acquitted at the close of the prosecution's case while the appellant was ordered to enter his defence.
• The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the room where drugs were found, including his status as registered tenant, continued rental payments, his son's expired passport found in the house, and keys to the room found at a second house also rented by the appellant.
• At the end of the defence case, the High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 30 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane; the appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence.

• Whether the prosecution had proven the element of "possession" (custody or control coupled with knowledge) of the dangerous drugs found in the locked room, given evidence that the appellant had vacated the premises about two months before the raid.
• Whether the trial judge conducted a proper maximum evaluation of the prosecution's evidence at the close of the prosecution's case, particularly regarding testimony from prosecution witnesses (including the investigating officer) that undermined the prosecution's theory of continued occupation and control.
• Whether the statutory presumption of possession under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was properly invoked, and if so, whether the defence had successfully rebutted it on a balance of probabilities.

• The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational element of custody or control over the room where drugs were found, as key prosecution witnesses (including the investigating officer) confirmed the appellant had moved out in December 2017, well before the raid, and no forensic evidence (DNA or fingerprints) linked him to the room or the container holding the drugs.
• The Court found the trial judge failed to perform the required maximum evaluation at the prima facie stage by overlooking material exculpatory evidence from prosecution witnesses, and erroneously relied on an expired passport and mere tenancy/rental payments to infer continued possession, constituting an error of law justifying appellate intervention.
• The Court ruled that since custody/control was not proven, the presumption under section 37(d) did not arise; in any event, the defence evidence would have rebutted it on a balance of probabilities, and the inconsistent treatment of similar evidence (acquitting the co-accused who was physically present with keys, DNA evidence and drug proximity, while convicting the absent appellant) raised reasonable doubt — the appeal was unanimously allowed, conviction and sentence quashed, and the appellant acquitted and discharged.