[Jabatan Peguam Negara] v KOH NGUN FOOK (BA-45A-84-07/2021)

Sejurus tangkapan dibuat, SP4 memperkenalkan diri sebagai polis dan memeriksa badan Tertuduh tetapi tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang 5 salah. Pemeriksaan beg coklat yang dipegang di tangan kanan Tertuduh telah menemui 3 batang anak kunci, 1 kad akses lif, 1 alat kawalan jauh BMW, kad pengenalan Tertuduh , Kad bank HSBC, Kad Miles Petron, telefon bimbit Iphone X warna hitam, telefon bimbit Samsung Galaxy Note 8.

SP4 dan pasukan serbuan kemudiannya bersama Tertuduh ke rumahnya dengan menggunakan kunci serta kad akses Tertuduh untuk menaiki lif dan membuka pintu rumah dan gril yang berada dalam keadaan berkunci.

Di rumah tersebut telah dijumpai beberapa barang salah. SP4 kemudiannya merampas dan membawa balik ke balai untuk siasatan lanjut. Antara barang-barang salah yang dirampas SP4 adalah seperti berikut:

Dadah dalam 1 beg biru mengandungi 5 paket plastik lutsinar berisi ketulan kristal disyaki dadah Syabu (AB: 475.50 gram) atas meja komputer ruang tamu rumah;

(ii) 1 bekas tin merah berpenutup dalamnya mengandungi 6 paket plastik lutsinar berisi ketulan kristal disyaki dadah Syabu atas lantai depan meja komputer di ruang tamu rumah;

(iii) 1 bungkusan plastik warna hijau bertulis Guanyingwang dalamnya ada 1 paket plastik lutsinar berisi ketulan kristal disyaki dadah Syabu atas lantai depan meja komputer di ruang tamu rumah;

(iv) 1 bungkusan plastik warna putih merah bertulis Toporun dalamnya ada serbuk mengandungi dadah jenis Syabu atas lantai depan meja komputer di ruang tamu rumah;

1 beg merah berlabel Wuyu dalamnya terdapat 4 paket plastik lutsinar berisi ketulan kristal disyaki dadah Syabu di dalam almari pakaian.

(vi) Dalam beg Wuyu yang sama juga menjumpai 1 paket plastik lutsinar mengandungi 13 biji pil berwarna biru disyaki dadah jenis Ectasy dan 1 paket plastik lutsinar mengandungi 19 biji pil berwarna merah disyaki dadah jenis Ecstasy. [8] Kesemua barang-barang kes telah dirampas oleh SP4 dan diserahkan kepada Pegawai Penyiasat dalam kes ini. Tindakan lanjut ke atas Tertuduh seterusnya dibuat oleh SP7 selaku Pegawai Penyiasat. SP7 telah menyerahkan barang rampasan kepada pihak SP5 dan SP11 dan setelah dianalisa oleh Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, barang-barang kes disahkan sebagai dadah berbahaya jenis Ketamine, MDMA dan Methamphetamine dengan kandungan berat seperti mana dalam pertuduhan. PENILAIAN DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH Beban Pembuktian Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan Kes prima facie [9] Di akhir kes pihak pendakwaan, tugas Mahkamah adalah untuk mempertimbangkan dan menilai secara maksimum keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan bagi menentukan sama ada satu kes prima facie telah dikemukakan terhadap OKT dengan menilai keterangan saksi pihak pendakwaan yang kredibel yang telah membuktikan segala intipati pertuduhan. Ini adalah seperti dinyatakan dalam seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ). Perkataan prima facie tidak ditakrifkan di bawah KTJ. Walau bagaimanapun Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Balachandran v PP [2005] 1 AMR 321; [2005] 2 MLJ 301 telah menghuraikan akan ujian prima facie. [10] Bagi mengemukakan satu kes prima facie, pihak pendakwaan harus menunjukkan intipati kesalahan telah dibuktikan iaitu: a) Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti yang tersenarai dalam Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dengan berat bersih seperti dalam pertuduhan; b) Dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan Tertuduh dan Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah yang dirampas; dan c) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan pengedaran dadah tersebut. Pembuktian Initipati (a) [11] SP11 yang merupakan Ahli Kimia telah melakukan analisa terhadap barang-barang kes dadah tersebut dan mengesahkan melalui SP11 bahawa barang-barang kes merupakan dadah berbahaya jenis Ketamine seberat 0.3gram, MDMA seberat 6.84gram dan Methamphetamine seberat 1,511gram. SP11 telah mengesahkan bahawa jenis dadah yang dianalisa adalah dadah berbahaya sebagaimana yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Pembuktian Intipati (b) [12] Untuk pembuktian dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan Tertuduh, rujukan boleh dibuat dalam kes-kes berikut bagi maksud milikan atau “possession”. (antaranya kes Chan Pean Leon v PP (1956) 1 MLJ 237, Toh Ah Loh & Mak Thim v R [1949] 1 MLJ 54, Leow Nghee Lim v R

1 MLJ 28, PP v Hafiszamri b Ahmad & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 497, Saad Ibrahim v. PP [1968] 1 MLJ 158; dan Pendakwa Raya v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 dirujuk). [13] Pemilikan harus mempunyai ciri-ciri kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan akan barang yang dimilikinya. Kawalan atau jagaan membawa maksud mempunyai penjagaan dan pengawalan atas barang tersebut. Seterusnya, pengetahuannya akan sifat barang yang berada dalam pengawalan dan penjagaan itu menunjukkan pemilikan ke atas barang tersebut. Dengan itu, pemilikan adalah apabila seseorang dalam keadaan mempunyai kuasa untuk menguruskan barang itu sebagai pemunya dengan mengecualikan orang lain. [14] Undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa beban pembuktian kes pada sepanjang masa berada di bahu pihak pendakwaan bagi membuktikan kesnya tanpa apa-apa keraguan yang munasabah. Kes Public Prosecutor v Abdul Rahman bin Akif [2007] 5 MLJ 1; [2007] 4 CLJ 337 telah membincangkan dengan panjang lebar tentang intipati milikan (possession) dan pengetahuan tertuduh terhadap dadah yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Rujuk juga kes-kes Choo Yoke Choy v PP [1992] 4 CLJ 1791; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 43, PP v Hong Ho Aik [2008] 10 CLJ 393 dan PP v Kung Yang Song [2010] 9 CLJ 483. [15] Adalah menjadi tugas pihak pendakwaan untuk mengecualikan (to exclude) orang lain daripada akses rumah dan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai dalam rumah tersebut. Undang-undang adalah mantap dalam perkara ini sepertimana yang diputuskan oleh kes-kes otoriti berikut: Abdullah Zawawi bin Yusoff v Public Prosecutor [1993] 3 MLJ 1; [1993] 4 MLJ 1 SC; [1993] 1 MLRA 416, Azizan Yahaya v PP [2013] 1 MLJ 180; [2013] 2 MLRA 29, Lean Siew Boon & Anor v PP [2014] 2 MLJ 572; [2013] MLRAU 213, Ooi Chee Seong and Another v PP [2014] 3 MLJ 593; [2014] MLRAU 120; [2014] 7 CLJ 505, Mazlaini Mansor v PP [2014] 2 MLJ 18; [2013] MLRAU 120, Ang Kian Chai v PP & Anor Appeal [2012] MLRA 456; [2012] MLJU 158, Pang Chee Meng v Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 MLJ 137, Ibrahim Mohamad & Anor v PP [2011] 6 MLJ 387; [2011] 4 CLJ 113. [16] Dalam kes Husin Sitorus v PP [2012] 7 CLJ 205 menjelaskan akan keperluan kepada pihak pendakwaan untuk mengecualikan orang lain kepada dadah yang dipersoalkan itu dengan menyatakan: “[15] There is a welter of authoritative precedents which have held that for possession to be established, accessibility by others to the place where the drugs are found should be excluded by evidence by the prosecution (PP v. Kang Ho Soh [1991] 3 CLJ 2914; [1991] 3 CLJ (Rep) 557 HC, PP v. Tang Chew Weng [1969] 1 LNS 141 HC. The onus is not on the defence to prove possibility of access by others but on the prosecution to exclude such possibility and the issue must be answered in favour of the appellant if there were more than one way in which the evidence adduced by the prosecution might be viewed such as in the present case, implicating the appellant or the other persons who were present in the boat. (Abdullah Zawawi Yusoff v. PP [1993] 4 CLJ 1 SC). In other words exclusivity of custody and control of the drugs ought to be established by the prosecution.”. [17] Seterusnya dalam kes PP v Tukiman bin Demin [2008] 8 CLJ 856 YA Mohd Zawawi Salleh menghuraikan beberapa keadaan mengenai hal yang sama: [14] Thus, to sum up, the common usage, plain, natural and ordinary meaning of "exclusive" is "excluding or to exclude all others; not shared or divided". In the context of drug possession, "exclusive possession" can be construed to mean that the place where the drugs are found must be exclusive to the accused. However, possession of the drugs need not be exclusive. Possession may be joint, that is, two or more persons may jointly have possession of the contraband, exercising custody and control over it. In that case, each of these persons is considered to be in possession of that contraband. (See Leow Nghee Lim v. Regina [1955] 1 LNS 53). In the present case, the issue of joint possession does not arise…… ….. [16] There is a plethora of cases decided by the courts on this point. The principle as discernible from those cases is simply these: there is a burden of proof on the prosecution to exclude the possibility of access by others to the place where the drugs are found. A failure by the prosecution to establish this would result in an acquittal of the accused; for example:

PP v. Chan Peng Fatt [1999] 8 CLJ 414. The court found that the accused did not have exclusivity to the attic where the drugs were found; therefore he was acquitted and discharged.

(ii) PP v. Md Alim Samad [1998] 5 CLJ 590. The rooms where the drugs were found were accessible by different people frequenting the house. The court held that knowledge alone was not enough to establish control.

(iii) Lee Chee Meng v. Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 CLJ 345; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 168, SC. There were access by third parties to the premises, thus exclusivity of use of the premises had not been proved and the accused was acquitted.

(iv) Pang Chee Meng v. Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 CLJ 39; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 265, SC. The accused was acquitted even though the drugs were found in his room, but, as he shared the room with several others, the prosecution had not proved exclusive use of the room or exclusive custody or control of the drugs.

Public Prosecutor v. Basri Salihin [1993] 1 CLJ 420. The bin where the drugs were found was accessible to the general public and the accused had no exclusive control over it. Therefore, the accused was acquitted and discharged. [17] In 3 (three) celebrated cases of Abdullah Zawawi bin Yusof v. PP [1993] 4 CLJ 1, Choo Yoke Choy v. Public Prosecutor [1992] 4 CLJ 1791; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 43, SC and Public Prosecutor v. Muhamad Nasir bin Shaharuddin & Anor [1992] 1 LNS 8, the court emphasized that the exclusivity of custody and control of the drugs by the accused must be established by the prosecution. Therefore, for possession to be established, accessibility by others to the place where the drugs are found must be excluded. [18] In the first case, the drugs were found in the appellant's tool box in a locked cupboard, the keys of which were with the appellant's wife, in the appellant's house which was still under construction. The appellant's wife was jointly charged but was acquitted at the end of the prosecution's case. Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ said: Given the fact that this was a case where the police were acting on a tip-off, the onus was not on the defence to prove possibility of access by others but on the prosecution to exclude such possibility. He adds further: This question must be answered in favour of the appellant considering that there was more than one way in which the evidence adduced by the prosecution might be viewed. The evidence indeed could have been regarded as implicating the appellant or the wife or both of them or the informer or even the other man living in the house. [19] In the second case, the drugs were found in a room occupied by the accused and his wife as well as from the common kitchen of the same house which was accessible to all the occupants of the house. Only the accused was charged. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant alone had possession of the drugs or that both he and his wife had joint possession of the drugs. Here, the prosecution had not shown that the accused had sole possession or joint possession of the drug, ie, a common intention to possess. Doubt existed as there were two people in the room and there was no evidence of common intention and further, there was access by others to the kitchen. [20] In the third case, it was held that generally, if exclusive occupation of premises cannot be established, especially where other persons also had access to the premises, it cannot be said that the occupier had custody and control over everything found in the premises. Furthermore, where two or more persons were found in a place where an offence had been committed, and if the evidence did not clearly point to one or the other, the guilt of neither had been established. [21] Now, reverting back to the present case, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had the exclusive possession of the offending drugs on the following : …. ….

21.4 The drugs were not found on the accused but in the room to which several persons have equal access. The presence of SP7, SP10 and Samiun bin Mohd Dah and other bachelors ("budak-budak bujang") in the house, raise some doubts as to whether it could be said affirmatively that the drugs were in the possession of the accused or either one of them or all of them are in joint possession of the said drugs. Where possession is not clear, as in the present case, when the offending drugs may be attributed to more than one individual, possession requires some nexus, link, or other connection between the accused and the offending drugs. In this case, there is no evidence of additional incriminating circumstances implicating the accused such as finger prints, incriminating statements, efforts to avoid arrest or the offending drugs were concealed in any portion of the room. The bare-bones of the prosecution case is the contraband was found in the accused's room. Under the circumstances, the prosecution's case is barren of establishing linking or demonstrating a nexus between the accused and the offending drugs. [18] Dengan itu, pihak pendakwaan hendaklah membuktikan Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan akan dadah yang berada dalam jagaannya itu dengan mengecualikan orang lain mempunyai akses pada tempat di mana dadah itu dikatakan dijumpai. Selain itu, pengetahuan itu boleh ditunjukkan dari fakta hal keadaan sesuatu kes itu. [19] Berdasarkan fakta, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal mengecualikan terdapatnya kemungkinan orang lain yang boleh mengakses rumah tersebut. Ini berdasarkan keterangan saksi Pendakwaan SP10. Selain itu, keterangan saksi Pendakwaan SP7 turut menyatakan kewujudan seorang bernama Lau Siew Leng yang boleh memasuki rumah menggunakan kad akses sendiri di mana SP 7 turut mengesahkan kehadiran Lau Siew Leng. Ini merujuk kepada keterangan SP7 semasa sesi Pemeriksaan Balas oleh Peguambela seperti berikut: : Ada sesiapa lagi yang tinggal di rumah kejadian selain OKT? : Ada sepupu OKT bernama Ah Siong beserta pembersih rumah Lau Siew Ling. : Ada tak Insp. siasatan siapa lagi yang tinggal di rumah itu? : Giam Tin Siong (no.9 dalam senarai saksi) : Ada satu nama lagi yang Insp. sebut. Siapa? : Liew Siew Ling. Beliau merupakan pembersih harian suspek. Beliau datang beberapa kali dalam seminggu untuk membersihkan rumah suspek : Liew Siew Ling datang ke rumah untuk apa? :