Muhammad Syafiq bin Ahmad Safri v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Muhammad Syafiq Bin Ahmad Safri

Respondent(s):

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

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

• The appellant was convicted in the High Court of trafficking in 381.4 grams of Methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping.
• The prosecution's case rested on police surveillance and CCTV evidence showing the appellant holding a brown envelope, entering a lift lobby, and exiting without it; the envelope was subsequently found on a parking payment machine and confirmed to contain the drugs.
• The appellant's defence was that he was carrying a paper bag of fried bananas and curry puffs, not the envelope containing drugs, and that a co-suspect (who was offered as a witness but not called by the defence) was implicated instead.

• Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant had exclusive possession of the dangerous drugs based on the CCTV footage and eyewitness testimony.
• Whether the prosecution's failure to call the co-suspect as a witness (having only offered him to the defence) was prejudicial to the defence, applying the principle in Rosli Yusuf v PP [2021] 7 CLJ 681.
• Whether the trial judge's failure to explicitly state that the defence must rebut the statutory presumption "on a balance of probabilities" amounted to an error of law vitiating the conviction.

• The Court held that the CCTV evidence and consistent testimony of the raiding officer established an unbroken chain of evidence linking the appellant to the drugs, and that the defence's explanation about food items was an afterthought unsupported by any physical evidence.
• The Court distinguished Rosli Yusuf, holding that since the defence never suggested during trial that the drugs belonged to the co-suspect, the defence's failure to call him (after he was offered) was at their own risk and did not prejudice the case.
• The Court ruled that the trial judge's omission of the exact phrase "balance of probabilities" was not fatal, as the substance of the judgment showed the correct legal standard was applied; the conviction and sentence were therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.