Saripuddin bin Sappe v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Saripuddin Bin Sappe

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant was arrested while driving his vehicle into an oil palm plantation at night, where a police search uncovered 17,656.8 grams of methamphetamine concealed in a luggage bag in the cargo bed and a backpack on the front passenger seat.
• A material witness testified that the appellant and another accused were the original occupants of the vehicle before other passengers entered, and that the luggage bag was loaded into the vehicle by unidentified individuals after the appellant stopped the vehicle during the journey.
• The High Court convicted the appellant of drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, finding that he had custody and control of the drugs, which triggered the statutory presumption of trafficking.

• Whether the prosecution proved the element of possession, specifically regarding the appellant’s knowledge of the drugs found in a vehicle under his control and in close proximity to him.
• Whether the prosecution’s failure to locate and call a specific individual who escaped the scene created a material lacuna in the case or warranted an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
• Whether the appellant’s defense—attributing ownership of the drugs to the escaped individual—constituted a "recent invention" or "afterthought" due to the failure to cross-examine prosecution witnesses on those material allegations.

• The Court affirmed that possession was established as the appellant, as the owner and driver, exercised exclusive control over the vehicle and facilitated the loading of the drugs, which, absent a reasonable explanation, gave rise to a strong inference of knowledge.
• The Court held that no adverse inference could be drawn for the failure to call the escaped individual because the investigating officer lacked sufficient particulars to trace him, and the appellant failed to provide such details or challenge the prosecution witnesses on this point during the trial.
• The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the defense was a recent invention because the appellant failed to put his version of events—specifically regarding the escaped individual's alleged ownership of the bags—to the material prosecution witnesses during cross-examination.