Muhammad Khairullah bin Mat Hitam v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Muhammad Khairullah Bin Mat Hitam

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Tuan Muniandy a/l Kannyappan
• YA Datuk Dean Wayne Daly

• The appellant was convicted in the High Court of trafficking in 603.0 grams of Methamphetamine under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping.
• The prosecution's case was built on evidence from an agent provocateur who negotiated to purchase 4 kilograms of methamphetamine from the appellant, culminating in the appellant delivering a package (containing 603.0 grams of the drug) at an agreed location the following night, before a police ambush led to his arrest.
• The appellant's defence was a bare denial, claiming he was delivering durian-orchard lease documents and that a third party ("Min") had actually handed over the drugs, with another individual ("Mohd Noor bin Aziz") allegedly having driven him to the scene.

• Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the prosecution's key witnesses (the agent provocateur and the raid leader), including discrepancies as to the exact location of the arrest.
• Whether the Investigating Officer's failure to investigate the first meeting location and the identities of "Min" and "Mohd Noor bin Aziz" caused prejudice to the appellant and deprived him of a fair trial.
• Whether the element of "selling" under Section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was established absent any actual exchange of money, and whether the burden of proof was improperly shifted onto the appellant.

• The Court affirmed the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the prosecution witnesses, holding that such findings, supported by demeanour and a site visit, were not to be disturbed on appeal absent clear error.
• The Court held that the Investigating Officer's failure to probe the first meeting or trace "Min" and "Mohd Noor bin Aziz" caused no prejudice, as the prosecution is not obliged to call every possible witness and the core transaction was proven through direct eyewitness testimony; the appellant's shifting narratives regarding these individuals were also found to be recent inventions undermining his credibility.
• Applying PP v Sa'ari bin Jusoh, the Court held that "selling" under Section 2 of the Act is established once drugs are delivered in exchange for an agreed price, even if money has not yet changed hands, and found no improper shifting of the burden of proof; the appeal against conviction and sentence was accordingly dismissed.