Wan Mohd Efizan bin W. Mohd Shamli v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Wan Mohd Efizan Bin W. Mohd Shamli

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pegawai Pendakwa]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant was charged in the High Court with two offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952): trafficking of 151.60g Methamphetamine (s. 39B(1)(a)) and joint possession of 28.69g Methamphetamine (s. 12(2) read with s. 34 Penal Code).
• The High Court found a prima facie case for both charges, called for the appellant's defence, and subsequently convicted him on both counts.
• The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes for trafficking, and 5 years imprisonment and 3 strokes for possession, with sentences running concurrently, leading to the present appeal.

• Whether there were material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, specifically between the investigating officer (SP7) and the co-accused (SP8), regarding the discovery location of the drugs.
• Whether there was a break in the chain of custody or doubt regarding the identity of the seized drugs.
• Whether the prosecution's failure to call a material witness, Amir Asrap, created a gap in their case, warranting an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.

• The Court allowed the appeal against the conviction for trafficking, finding that the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the DDA 1952.
• The Court held that the material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the discovery of drugs in the wardrobe, coupled with the unchallenged denial of the appellant leading the police to the discovery, created reasonable doubt for the trafficking charge.
• The Court dismissed the appeal against the conviction for possession, affirming that the appellant failed to raise reasonable doubt on the elements of *mens rea* and common intention, especially given the co-accused's consistent testimony and plea of guilt regarding the drugs found on the dressing table. The Court also found no break in the chain of custody and no adverse inference for not calling Amir Asrap.