Muhammad Quddus bin Zahari v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Muhammad Quddus Bin Zahari

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
• YA Dato' Sri Latifah Binti Haji Mohd Tahar

• The appellant was jointly charged with two co-accused for drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, but the co-accused were acquitted at the close of the prosecution case for lack of common intention, leaving the appellant to face an amended charge alone.
• Police found 29,230.2 grammes of Cannabis in the boot of a rented car which the appellant had hired; the car key was found in the appellant's pocket, and all three men (including the two co-accused) had attempted to flee upon police approach.
• The High Court convicted the appellant, finding he had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs (partly inferred from his flight), triggering the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(vi) of the DDA, which the appellant failed to rebut; he was sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes.

• Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the foundational facts of possession (custody/control coupled with knowledge) necessary before the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(vi) of the DDA could be invoked.
• Whether control of a vehicle as its hirer, combined with possession of its key, is sufficient to establish custody and control over drugs concealed in the boot, notwithstanding the presence of other occupants with equal access.
• Whether the appellant's flight from police, in circumstances where the co-accused (who were found to have knowledge of the drugs but not custody/control) also fled, could support an inference of the appellant's knowledge of the drugs.

• The Court held that control of a vehicle does not automatically equate to custody or control over items concealed within it, particularly where other persons with knowledge of the drugs (as found by the High Court itself) had equal access to the vehicle.
• The Court found that the appellant's flight was equivocal and could not be distinguished from that of the co-accused, weakening its probative value; the statutory presumption under section 37(da)(vi) could not be used to establish the foundational fact of possession, which must first be proved independently by the prosecution.
• As the prosecution failed to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of trafficking was not properly activated; the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.