rayuan jenayah no: a-05-120-2009 antara mohd kamal bin osman

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64, 69, Lord Diplock had this to say about proof of knowledge by way of an inference: “Proof of the purpose for which an act is done, where such purpose is a necessary ingredient for the offence with which an accused is charged, presents a problem with which criminal courts are very familiar. Generally, in the absence of an express admission by the accused, the purpose with which he did an act is a matter of inference from what he did.” [33] Augustine Paul J (later FCJ) in Mohd Farid bin Mohd Sukis & Anor [2002] 3 AMR 3457; [2002] 3 MLJ 401, after citing a few authorities, observed that “proof of knowledge is very often a matter of inference”. [34] Again, the same learned Judge observed in Public Prosecutor v Reza Mohd Shah bin Ahmad Shah [2002] 4 MLJ 13, at page 20: “There are many circumstances from which knowledge can be inferred. One instance is the inference to be drawn from the act of a person in absconding or fleeing from the scene of a crime.” [35] We pause here to state categorically that in the context of the present appeal, the very act of the appellant in attempting to run after hearing SP4 shouted the word “Polis” was sufficient to conclude that the appellant had possession of the drugs found in the black coloured plastic bag (exhibit “P5C”) that was put inside the carrier basket of the said motorcycle even without resorting to the presumption under section 37(d) of the DDA.
15 [36] Here, the learned High Court Judge indirectly relied on section 37(d) of the DDA without specifically mentioning it after his Lordship alluded to the case of Public Prosecutor v. Chan Ah Kow (supra). [37] On the issue of possession, we need to refer to some authorities. [38] In the Federal Court case of PP v. Abdul Rahman Akif [2007] 4 CLJ 337; [2007] 5 MLJ 1, Arifin Zakaria FCJ (now Chief Justice of Malaysia) discussed the element of possession in relation to the drugs found in packages under the seats of a car driven by the accused and also considered the views of Thomson J in Chan Pean Leon v Public Prosecutor [1956] 22 MLJ 237 and that of Shankar J in Pendakwa Raya v Kang Ho Soh [1991] 3 CLJ 2913 as well as the Singapore case of Lim Beng Soon v Public Prosecutor [2000] 4 SLR 589 and held that the presence of the three packages in the car without a plausible explanation from the respondent could give rise to a strong inference that he had knowledge that the packages contained drugs or things of similar nature. [39] This would be followed by two authorities emanating from Singapore. The first would be the case of Ramis a/l Muniandy v PP [2001] 3 SLR 534. There Ramis was seen riding a motorcycle along the Marsiling Industrial Estate. The Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers saw him parking his motorcycle at the parking lots next to Block 7. Ramis was then seen walking towards Marsiling Rise and stopping at the front of Block 7.
Page 1 and 2: 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (B
Page 3 and 4: 3 [3] The appellant elected to give
Page 5 and 6: 5 [7] SP4 succeeded in apprehending
Page 7 and 8: 7 [16] When the appellant was about
Page 9 and 10: 9 is not concerned as to the owners
Page 11 and 12: 11 was sanctioned by the Federal Co
Page 13: 13 [30] Likewise SP5 also testified
Page 17 and 18: 17 [42] We will now reproduce the d
Page 19 and 20: 19 burden is always on the prosecut
Page 21 and 22: 21 “Bertindak atas maklumat dadah
Page 23: Cases referred to in this judgment:

rayuan jenayah no: a-05-120-2009 antara mohd kamal bin osman

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?