By Dorcas Ting
KUCHING, June 19: A man who was previously charged with possessing ketamine and MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) has been acquitted and discharged by the Magistrate’s Court here today after the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case.
Magistrate Ling Hui Chuan made the ruling after finding that the prosecution failed to prove a crucial element of the case, namely that the accused had knowledge of the contents of the parcels he had collected.
The accused, Yee Haw Ran, had been charged in October 2022 with two counts of drug possession at Jalan Penrissen here.
Under the first charge, he was accused of possessing 335.37 grammes of ketamine, an offence under Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, punishable under Section 12(3) of the same Act.
The second charge alleged that he was in possession of 12.4 grammes of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), an offence under Section 39A(1)(x) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which carries a penalty of between two and five years’ imprisonment and three to nine strokes of the cane upon conviction.
The court heard that the prosecution had successfully proven custody of the parcels but failed to establish that the accused had knowledge that the parcels contained dangerous drugs.
Citing the High Court decision in PP v Santanasamy Muthiah & Ors, the court reiterated that both possession and knowledge must be proven in drug-related cases.
Evidence showed that the accused had collected the parcels on instructions from an individual identified as “Cao Chao” or “Cao Cao”. The court noted that he was neither the sender nor the intended recipient and had no ownership over the parcels.
The court also held that it would be unsafe to infer knowledge solely from the accused’s behaviour during arrest, where he appeared startled and dropped the parcels when confronted by enforcement officers.
It was further observed that the prosecution relied primarily on the accused’s conduct at the time of arrest without presenting additional evidence linking him to the contents of the parcels.
The magistrate noted that the accused made no attempt to flee when approached by authorities, and that a startled reaction alone was insufficient to establish guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of these findings, the court ruled that the accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and should not be called to enter his defence.
The prosecution did not object to the ruling and subsequently applied for the forfeiture and disposal of the seized exhibits, which the court allowed.
The accused was represented by counsel Dato Shankar Ram, assisted by Shedmira, while the prosecution was conducted by Deputy Public Prosecutor Masdi Umar for the Royal Malaysian Customs Department. — DayakDaily
