Case of the week: Razali Samani v. PP

RAZALI SAMANI v. PP
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
SURIYADI HALIM OMAR JCA, HASAN LAH JCA, AHMAD MAAROP JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: J-05-110-2007]
29 SEPTEMBER 2010

CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - 888.56 grams of cannabis - Appeal by accused against conviction and sentence - Defence of accused - Whether raised a reasonable doubt on prosecution's case - Credibility of police witnesses - Statutory presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) - Whether rebutted by accused - Whether trial judge appreciated defence case properly - Whether conviction warranted

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Explanation by accused - Trafficking in cannabis, appeal against conviction and sentence - Existence of another person who brought cannabis into accused's car - Credibility of police witnesses - Whether accused's defence failed to raise any reasonable doubt that accused in possession of cannabis found in his car - Whether trial judge appreciated defence case properly - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37(da), 39B(1)(a)

 

EVIDENCE: Witness - Police as - Credibility of police witnesses - Whether trial judge correct in accepting their evidence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This This was the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the High Court convicting him under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('Act') of trafficking in 888.56 grams of cannabis which amounts to a death penalty.

The Appelant was ambushed by the police at Kempas Toll Plaza where he was found  in possession of cannabis in his car.  In his defence, the Appellant argued that the cannabis does not belong to him . It was another person ('Mohd Izuan') who had brought the cannabis into the car. It was further contended that Mohd Izuan got out of the car to go to the toilet when the Appellant parked his car at the Kempas Toll Plaza. 

The trial judge, however, was of the view that the Appelant has failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. As such, his appeal was dismissed and the decision of the trial judge was upheld.   

For further details of the abovementioned case, kindly visit http://www.cljlaw.com/ . Happy reading !