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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Introduction 2 ABDUL MALIK BIN ISHAK, JCA DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT [1] Before the Taiping High Court, the appellant was charged for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, to wit, 4,089 grammes of cannabis, an offence under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (“DDA”) and punishable under section 39B(2) of the DDA. The charge against the appellant reads as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 28.2.2001 jam lebih kurang 8.40 malam di Batu 2 ½ Jalan Simpang, Taiping di dalam Daerah Larut Matang dan Selama di dalam Negeri Perak, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu 4,089 gram cannabis dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.” [2] At the close of the case for the prosecution, the learned High Court Judge evaluated the evidence on a maximum evaluation and found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving a prima facie case sufficient to convict the appellant even if the appellant elected to remain silent and his Lordship then called for the defence of the appellant under section 39B(1)(a) of the DDA and punishable under section 39B(2) of the DDA (Looi Kow Chai & Anor v PP [2003] 2 MLJ 65, [2003] 2 AMR 89; and Balachandran v PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85).
3 [3] The appellant elected to give his evidence under oath and he called no other witnesses. The learned High Court Judge, at the end of the trial, found that the appellant had failed to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case and convicted him accordingly. The appellant was sentenced to death by hanging. Aggrieved, the appellant now appeals to this Court. The prosecution’s case [4] Within a narrow compass, the prosecution’s case may be stated as follows. On 28.2.2001, ASP Iyeng a/l Ending Niang (SP4) attended a briefing conducted by ASP Razali from the narcotics division of the Taiping district headquarters pertaining to an information that a target riding a motorcycle bearing registration number AEB 2680 from Kuala Kurau to Taiping would be trafficking drugs. In that briefing, which was also attended by Detective Sergeant Major 63152 Ali bin Shafie (SP5) and other police personnel, ASP Razali divided the members of the police party into three teams. [5] Approximately at 7.00 p.m., SP4 who drove a motor car together with his team which included SP5 arrived at the surveillance area which was near a traffic light at Simpang Empat, Semanggol and waited. At about 8.15 p.m., SP4 saw a man – the target, riding alone on a motorcycle bearing registration number AEB 2680 coming from the direction of Bagan
Page 1: 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (B
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 and 14: 13 [30] Likewise SP5 also testified
Page 15 and 16: 15 [36] Here, the learned High Cour
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?