[Pendakwa Raya] v Muhamad Hafizul Bin Zainudin (DF-83D-1311-12/2022)

OKT dalam kes ini telah dituduh dengan tiga pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB 1952) yang boleh dihukum mengikut seksyen 39A(1) ADB 1952: Bahawa kamu pada 18/09/2022 jam lebih kurang 1.30 pagi di sebuah 20 rumah beralamat PT 2734 Taman Merbau Utama Selising 16800 Pasir Puteh dalam jajahan Pasir Puteh negeri Kelantan telah didapati dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dengan berat bersih 23.52 gram. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(1) akta yang sama. 5

Di akhir kes pembelaan Mahkamah telah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah ke atas OKT. Oleh itu Mahkamah telah melepaskan dan membebaskan OKT. 10

Ringkasan fakta kes pendakwaan adalah seperti berikut: a. Pada 18.09.2022, bertindak atas maklumat dadah, pada pukul lebih 15 kurang 1.30 pagi, pengadu Insp Azalina Binti Bakri (SP1) telah mengetuai sepasukan anggota polis (termasuk SP4) membuat serbuan ke sebuah rumah di alamat PT 2734, Taman Merbau Utama Selising 16810 Pasir Puteh, Kelantan. 20 b. SP1 dan anggota telah membuat pemerhatian ke atas kawasan di sekeliling rumah tersebut selama lebih kurang 5 minit dan mendapati pagar rumah dalam keadaan tertutup tiada pergerakan orang keluar atau masuk ke dalam rumah tersebut. SP1 telah masuk ke kawasan rumah bersama dengan 5 anggota apabila pintunya dibuka oleh L/Kpl 25 Nasrul yang telah memanjat pagar dan membukanya dari dalam. Empat lagi anggota diarahkan untuk membuat kawalan sekeliling di luar rumah. c. SP1 mendapati pintu grill dan pintu kayu dalam kedaan tertutup tetapi tidak berkunci. SP1 telah membuka pintu tersebut dan melihat tiada 5 orang di bahagian ruang tamu dan bilik pertama rumah tersebut. d. Seterusnya SP1 telah pergi ke bilik kedua di mana pintu dalam keadaan bertutup dan SP1 telah mengetuk pintu tersebut lalu membukanya dan telah melihat OKT sedang berada di atas tilam. 10 SP1 telah memperkenalkan dirinya sebagai polis. e. SP1 mendapati OKT dalam keadaan panik, cemas, takut dan terkejut dengan kedatangan polis dan dilihat cuba melarikan diri. Pemeriksaan dibuat ke atas badan tertuduh tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. 15 SP1 dan SP4 juga menyatakan OKT dilihat cuba melarikan diri. f. Pemeriksaan SP1 di dalam bilik tersebut telah menjumpai satu plastik berwarna ungu (P9) di bawah meja bilik tersebut. Pemeriksaan lanjut oleh SP1 pada P9 mendapati kandungannya satu bungkusan plastik 20 lutsinar (P10) di dalamnya ada satu bungkusan kertas warna kekuningan (P11) yang mana di dalamnya mengandungi 9 paket plastik warna biru (P17 (1-9)) yang mana setiap satu paket berisi pil-pil merah dan hijau disyaki dadah. 25 g. Hasil analisis oleh ahli kimia (SP5) mendapati pil-pil merah dan hijau tersebut mengandungi 23.52 gram Methamphetamine sebagaimana yang dilaporkan dalam laporan kimia (P7). PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN 5

Prinsip undang-undang dalam pembuktikan kes prima facie oleh pihak pendakwaan di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah sebagaimana yang diputuskan dalam kes Looi Kow Chai & Anor v PP (2003) 1 CLJ 734 dan dalam kes Balachandran a/l Selvaratnam v PP (2005) 1 CLJ 85.

Prinsip undang-undang berkenaan “maximum evaluation” dan “credible evidence” adalah sebagaimana yang diputuskan dalam kes Abdullah bin Atan v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, [2020] 6 MLJ 727 dan kes Public Prosecutor v Tal bin Shuaib [2017] MLJU 2408.

Kes-kes duluan di atas yang dirujuk memberikan gambaran peri pentingnya setiap tapisan, ujian dan penilaian dibuat ke atas semua keterangan pihak pendakwaan. Turut ditekankan juga adalah keperluan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan keterangan yang boleh dipercayai 20 (“credible”).

Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952, yang menjadi pertuduhan terhadap OKT memperuntukkan: 25 Restriction on import and export of certain dangerous drugs

(1) No person shall except under the authorization of the

import into Malaysia any dangerous drug specified in Parts III,

export from Malaysia any dangerous drug specified in Parts III 5 and IV of the First Schedule.

No person shall have in his possession, custody or control any dangerous drug to which this Part applies unless he is authorized to be in possession, custody or control of such drug or is deemed to be so authorized under this Act or the regulations made 10 thereunder.

Dalam membuktikan kes prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan, terdapat dua elemen yang perlu dibuktikan iaitu: 15 a. Dadah yang dirampas itu adalah dadah berbahaya; dan b. OKT mempunyai milikan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut DAPATAN MAHKAMAH DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN 20 Elemen 1: Sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa barang kes adalah dadah berbahaya?

Untuk elemen pertama Mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan identiti dadah berbahaya tersebut melalui 25 keterangan SP5 (ahli kimia) dan laporan kimianya (P7). Mahkamah juga mendapati rantaian keterangan barang tidak terputus sejak barang kes dijumpai oleh SP1 dan pasukannya di tempat kejadian sehinggalah dianalisis oleh SP5. Elemen 2: Sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan pemilikan OKT terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut?

Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Lim Chsung Meng & Anor and another appeal [2015] MLJU 2234 yang menyatakan: 10 [25] It is perhaps convenient at the outset to briefly state the law on “possession” where the drugs were found in a place/area under the control of an accused. A determination of whether there is “possession” depends on the particular facts of each case. Factors that used to be considered in determining whether an accused is in 15 possession of the drugs found in a place/area under his or her control include his or her knowledge that the drugs were in the place/area, his or her access to the place/area where the drugs were found and his or her physical proximity to the drugs. 20 [26] The possession prohibited by law need not be actual physical custody and control of the drugs; it is sufficient if the prosecution proves that the accused had knowledge of its presence and the power and intent to control its disposal. Further, possession need not be exclusive; a person may be deemed to be in joint possession 25 of a drug which is in the physical custody and control of another person, if he or she wilfully shares with the other the right of control over the drug.

Berkenaan isu pengetahuan, Mahkamah merujuk kepada keputusan 5 Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Parlan bin Dadeh v Public Prosecutor [2008] 6 MLJ 19 yang menyatakan: [25] The law is clear and well settled. Proof of knowledge is very often a matter of inference. The material from which the inference 10 of knowledge can be drawn varies from case to case. It would be sufficient for the prosecution to prove facts from which it could properly be inferred that the accused had the necessary knowledge… 15

Mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah membawakan keterangan yang cukup semasa di peringkat pendakwaan untuk membuktikan wujudkan elemen pemilikan dan pengetahuan OKT terhadap dadah tersebut melalui fakta-fakta berikut: 20 a. SP1 dan pasukan telah membuat pemerhatian selama 5 minit sebelum memasuki rumah tersebut dan mendapati tiada pergerakan keluar masuk mana-mana individu lain; b. Pintu rumah dalam keadaan tertutup; c. SP1 dan pasukan telah masuk ke bilik kedua rumah tersebut di 25 mana hanya OKT seorang sahaja berada di situ; d. Semasa serbuan dilakukan hanya OKT sahaja berada di dalam rumah tersebut; e. Semasa serbuan, SP1 menyatakan OKT cuba untuk melarikan diri; f. Dadah berbahaya tersebut dijumpai di bawah meja di dalam bilik 5 tempat OKT sedang berada; g. Dadah dijumpai dalam jarak dekat yang boleh dilihat dan boleh diakses oleh OKT; h. SP2 sebagai tuan punya rumah tersebut telah mengesahkan bahawa rumah tersebut disewa oleh OKT sendiri.

Atas sebab-sebab di atas maka Mahkamah mendapati terdapat keterangan yang cukup untuk mahkamah memanggil OKT bagi membela diri. OKT perlu menjawab semua keterangan yang telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Oleh itu Mahkamah memutuskan 15 pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie ke atas OKT.

Tugas pihak pembelaan di akhir kes pembelaan adalah untuk 20 menimbulkan keraguan munasabah sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan dalam keputusan Mahkamah Agung dalam kes Mohamad Radhi bin Yaakob v Public Prosecutor [1991] 3 MLJ 169: “…To earn an acquittal at the close of the case for prosecution under 25 s 173(f) or s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court must be satisfied that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction (Munusamy v PP). If the defence is called, the duty of the accused is only to case a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. He is not required to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. 5 To earn an acquittal, the court may not be convinced of the truth of the defence story or version. Raising a reasonable doubt in the guilt of the accused will suffice. It is not, however, wrong for the court to be convinced that the defence version is true, in which case the court must order an acquittal. In appropriate cases it is also not wrong for 10 the court to conclude that the defence story is false or not convincing, but in that instance, the court must not convict until it asks a further question, that even if the court does not accept or believe the defence explaination, does it nevertheless raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt? It is for this reason that in dealing with the defence 15 story or explanation, the majority of judges rightly prefer to adopt straightaway the legally established ‘reasonable doubt’ test, rather than delve in the ‘believe and convincing’ test before applying the ‘reasonable doubt’ test…” 20

Maksud keraguan munasabah pula dihuraikan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Saimin & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 16: “…The following definition of 'reasonable doubt' is often quoted, it is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human 25 affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. It has again been said that 'reasonable doubt' is the doubt which 5 makes you hesitate as to the correctness of the conclusion which you reach. If under your oaths and upon your consciences, after you have fully investigated the evidence and compared it in all its parts, you say to yourself I doubt if he is guilty, then it is a reasonable doubt. It is a doubt which settles 10 in your judgment and finds a resting place there.'

Dalam kes Sabarudin bin Non & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2005] 4 MLJ 37 pula, Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan bahawa: 15 “…As to what is meant by 'reasonable doubt' we would refer to Underbill's treatise on The Law of Criminal Evidence (5th Ed, vol 1, at p 34) where the learned author states as follows: The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an 20 honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a 25 reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in their minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt. (Emphasis added.)...” 5

Pihak pembelaan telah menampilkan dua orang saksi semasa di peringkat pembelaan iaitu OKT sendiri dan SD2 yang merupakan 10 pelanggan kepada OKT.

Ringkasan kes pembelaan adalah seperti berikut: a. OKT mengesahkan dia tinggal di rumah tersebut sejak tahun 2018 15 dan menjalankan perniagaan percetakan baju atas nama MHZ Biz Solution (sijil SSM D21 dirujuk); b. OKT turut tinggal bersama dengan adiknya yang bernama Muhamad Hisyam Bin Zainuddin (“Hisham”) di rumah tersebut. Hisyam dikatakan turut terlibat dengan perniagaan tersebut dan mempunyai 20 akses ke semua bahagian rumah tersebut termasuklah bilik di mana barang kes dijumpai; c. Hisyam turut ditangkap pada malam kejadian berkait dengan satu lagi kes dadah; d. Selain daripada Hisham, seorang pekerja OKT yang bernama Mohd 25 Syahmi Bin Bakri turut mempunyai akses kepada rumah berkenaan termasuk bilik tempat barang kes dijumpai; e. Rumah tersebut turut boleh dimasuki oleh semua pelanggan yang berurusan dengan OKT termasuk SD2; f. Bilik tempat OKT ditahan adalah bilik Hisham; g. Semasa kejadian berlaku, OKT berada dalam keadaan terkejut kerana serbuan dilakukan pada tengah malam dan anggota polis 5 yang hadir semuanya berpakaian preman; h. Tiada cubaan untuk OKT melarikan diri dan pandangannya terhadap dadah berkenaan adalah terhalang serta tidak tahu isi kandungannya; i. OKT tidak tahu kandungan dadah berbahaya di dalam bungkusan tersebut kerana rupanya seakan-akan plastik sampah dan terdapat 10 banyak lagi plastik yang merupakan sampah-sarap dalam bilik tersebut. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH DI AKHIR KES PEMBELAAN 15

Mahkamah mendapati isu utama yang dibangkitkan oleh pihak pembelaan adalah berkenaan dengan akses terhadap rumah dan bilik tersebut. Pihak pembelaan dengan tegasnya menyatakan OKT tidak mempunyai pemilikan eksklusif terhadap dadah yang dijumpai. Menurut OKT, rumah tersebut boleh diakses oleh sesiapa sahaja termasuk 20 Hisyam, Syahmi dan pelanggan-pelanggan OKT yang lain.

Memandangkan dadah tersebut dijumpai di dalam bilik, tumpuan Mahkamah terarah kepada siapa yang mempunyai akses terhadap bilik tersebut. Mahkamah mendapati bilik tersebut hanya boleh diakses oleh 25 penghuni yang tinggal di rumah itu sahaja kerana tiada keterangan yang cukup untuk menunjukkan bilik itu turut digunakan sebagai tempat aktiviti perniagaan yang membolehkan mana-mana pelanggan boleh keluar masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut secara bebas. Perkara ini disokong oleh keterangan SD2 yang mengesahkan dia berurusan dengan OKT di ruang tamu sahaja. Perkara sama turut dinyatakan oleh SP2 yang melihat pelanggan-pelanggan OKT keluar masuk ke rumah tersebut. 5 Oleh itu pertimbangan Mahkamah terarah kepada kemungkinan adanya akses oleh Hisham ke atas bilik tersebut.

Berkenaan dengan isu akses, Mahkamah merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang membenarkan rayuan perayu dalam kes 10 Azizan bin Yahaya v Public Prosecutor [2013] 1 MLJ 180 yang menyatakan: [16] The evidence showed that the drawer was closed thus the bag P8 was not visible. There was no evidence that the drawer was 15 locked. The onus was on the prosecution to exclude, at the very least, the possibility of access by other persons to the drawer, if not the room, and that only the appellant and no other person had exclusive access and use of the drawer. The onus was not on the defence to prove possibility of access to the drawer by others. We 20 find that the learned judge had failed to consider that the prosecution had failed to exclude the possibility that other individuals could not have had access to the drawer. In Leow Nghee Lim v Rex [1956] MLJ 28; [1955] 1 LNS 53Taylor J dealt with the issue of possession as follows: 25 A man must know of the existence of a chattel and have some idea of its whereabouts before he can exercise any control over it. The word possession therefore implies some knowledge but not necessarily full or exact knowledge. His Lordship said further: The word ‘possession’ is a vague and general word which cannot be closely defined. Without at least general knowledge there cannot be 5 possession but there can be possession without full and exact knowledge.

Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Agung yang membenarkan rayuan perayu dalam kes Gooi Loo Seng v Public 10 Prosecutor [1993] 2 MLJ 137 menyatakan: We note also that the trial judge accepted at full face value the testimony of Tan Ah Kwai that although she had a set of keys to the bedroom she never ever entered it when the appellant was not in. 15 In thus accepting the testimony of Tan Ah Kwai, the trial judge does not seem to have recognized that Tan Ah Kwai might have had every possible motive to suppress the truth and to lie, if necessary, at the expense of the appellant, bearing in mind that she was an obvious suspect. In any event, we consider that Tan Ah Kwai's 20 testimony on this point was, to put it mildly, an improbable story. The fact of the matter was that she could have had access to the bedroom, and if necessary, with her friends, without attracting the attention of the appellant. The trial judge however adopted a Nelsonian approach to Tan Ah Kwai's testimony, and as a result, 25 rejected the crucial part of the defence case which was that the heroin was concealed in his bedroom without his knowledge.

Mahkamah seterusnya merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang membenarkan rayuan perayu dalam kes Saludin Bin Surif v Public Prosecutor [1997] 3 MLJ 317 yang menyatakan: 5 From the evidence of these witnesses, it seems to us that there was no room for doubt that B3 including the cupboard found therein, in which the ganja was found, were not only accessible to all those who resided in the premises but also accessible to anyone who came to the premises. Therefore, it seems clear to us that the 10 prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant above had exclusive possession, custody and control of the ganja found in that room. On this score alone, we feel that the learned judge had erred when he invoked the presumption under s 37(d) of the Act against the appellant. At the close of the 15 prosecution's case, the prosecution itself had in fact established that the appellant had no exclusive possession of the drug found in B3, given the fact that the others in the premises had access to that room. In Gooi Loo Seng v PP [1993] 2 MLJ 137, a far worse situation existed vis-a-vis the place where the drug was found.

Mahkamah juga merujuk keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Mohamad B Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor [2013] MLJU 1592 [14] Learned counsel for the Appellant had rightly submitted that the 25 learned trial judge did not make any positive finding of possession. The room marked D in the sketch plan (exhibit P26) was normally used for prayers and it was in fact used by SP10 the day before the police raided the house. The room was not locked and it was accessible to all and sundry. The evidence of SP8 and SP10, besides the evidence of the Appellant himself established that fact. In other words, it was part of the prosecution’s case that the room 5 was readily accessible and was not within the exclusive domain of the Appellant. At the time of the raid too, SP4 confirmed that the room was not locked. SP8, the tenant of the house says the room was used “untuk buat kerja dan bilik untuk sembahyang” (see page 156 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1). Besides, SP8 also kept his A4 paper 10 and his printer in the drawer there. Two other sleeping partners of the Appellant, Along and Mohd Roshdi used to come to the house to check the stock of silk used in the Appellant’s business. In cross-examination, SP8 further confirmed that the Appellant’s friends too, used the said room although he was not sure whether they ever 15 slept in the room. And upon being put to him that any visitor to the house will use the room instead of the other two rooms, SP8 readily agreed to the suggestion. Corroborating the evidence of SP10, SP8 also stated that SP10 did come to the house and used the room the night before the police raided the said house. 20 …. [18] A judge who adjudicated upon a dispute must assess and weigh the evidence before him and must also critically examine the same. Any decision arrived at in the absence of judicial appreciation of evidence is liable to judicial correction (Boonsoom Boonyamit v. 25 Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd [1997] 3 CLJ 17, Lee Ing Chin & Ors v. Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 CLJ 19). [19] While acknowledging that the room is accessible to the Appellant’s friends and the friends of SP8, the learned trial judge concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the Appellant was framed either by his own friends or that of SP8’s friends. As His 5 Lordship had found, the Appellant’s defence is one of a denial as to any knowledge about the drugs. A frame up by others was never his defence. What the learned trial judge has failed to do was to evaluate and appraise the evidence on the possibility of the drugs to belong to or to have been placed there by others. This is a crucial 10 part of the Appellant’s defence which His Lordship had failed to judicially and adequately consider. Failure of the learned trial judge to fully appreciate and evaluate the evidence of the witnesses is a serious misdirection, warranting appellate intervention. 15 [20] Taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, we are of the considered view that the learned trial judge had failed to consider that the room where the drugs were found was accessible to others and there was no exclusive custody and control of the drawer by the Appellant. Our perusal of the learned trial judge’s 20 grounds of judgment did not indicate that His Lordship had made that consideration. In our view, that evidence is material and that failure to consider material evidence does make an error of law is beyond argument. (Gotham Construction Co. v. Amulya Krishna [1967] AIR Calcutta 91). 25

Kes-kes Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Persekutuan dan Mahkamah Rayuan yang dirujuk di atas membicarakan kes-kes yang melibatkan isu pemilikan dadah berbahaya. Kes-kes di atas jelas menunjukkan bahawa adalah menjadi kewajipan pihak pendakwaan untuk mengecualikan kebarangkalian akses orang lain ke atas tempat di mana dadah 5 berbahaya tersebut dijumpai.

Berbalik kepada kes ini, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan pihak pembelaan bahawa watak Hisham bukanlah satu watak yang direka-reka (“fictitious”) dan kaitannya dengan kes dadah sentiasa berada 10 dalam pengetahuan Mahkamah. Hasil semakan rekod Mahkamah sendiri mendapati individu yang bernama Muhamad Hisyam Bin Zainuddin (Nombor KP: 960828-03-5595) ini adalah benar-benar wujud dan pernah dituduh di Mahkamah ini (Nombor kes: DF-83D-884- 09/2022) untuk satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952 yang 15 dilakukan pada 17/09/2022 pukul 11.30 malam, kira-kira 2 jam sebelum serbuan ke atas rumah OKT.

Mahkamah telah melihat semula nota prosiding (D40) dalam kes Hisyam dan mendapati pekerjaannya sebagai “kerja printing baju” sebagaimana 20 yang direkodkan oleh Majistret terdahulu yang mendengar kesnya. Fakta ini selari dengan apa yang dinyatakan oleh OKT dan SD2 tentang penglibatan Hisyam dalam perniagaan percetakan baju yang dijalankan oleh OKT di rumahnya. Fakta ini juga konsisten dengan apa yang dipersetujui SP2 ketika dicadangkan oleh pihak pembelaan tentang 25 kewujudan adik OKT yang tinggal bersama dengan OKT dan peranannya dalam menanggung sewa rumah tersebut dari bulan September 2022 sehingga bulan Disember 2022.

Setelah pihak pembelaan berjaya membuktikan kewujudan Hisyam, Mahkamah seterusnya mendapati pihak pembelaan telah berjaya 5 mewujudkan keraguan munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan dari segi akses dan penggunaan oleh Hisham ke atas bilik di mana dadah berbahaya tersebut dijumpai. Tambahan pula, pihak pendakwaan tidak pernah mengemukakan keterangan tambahan lain untuk mengaitkan OKT dengan bilik tersebut seperti rampasan barang peribadi dan 10 padanan DNA pada barang-barang peribadi yang dirampas.

Oleh yang demikian, berdasarkan fakta-fakta yang telah dibuktikan di atas, Mahkamah mendapati pihak pembelaan telah berjaya membuktikan terdapat kemungkinan akses orang lain terhadap dadah 15 tersebut.

Berkenaan dengan isu pengetahuan pula, Mahkamah mendapati OKT telah memberikan penjelasan yang memuaskan bahawa dia tiada pengetahuan berkenaan kandungan dadah berbahaya dalam 20 bungkusan P9. Tempat P9 dijumpai adalah di bawah meja dan berhampiran dengan plastik-plastik lain di dalam bilik tersebut (rujuk P1 E-H). Dalam keadaan bilik berselerak dengan plastik sampah-sarap seperti yang dirakamkan dalam P1 E-H, adalah wajar untuk mana-mana orang mempercayai bahawa P9 juga merupakan sebahagian daripada 25 sampah-sarap itu. Oleh itu Mahkamah mendapati ini merupakan satu “benefit of doubt” yang memihak kepada OKT.

Selain itu Mahkamah mendapati pembelaan OKT bukanlah satu penafian semata-mata sebagaimana dihujahkan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Hal ini kerana OKT telah memberikan penjelasan yang memuaskan dan turut menampilkan saksi (SD2) dan keterangan 5 dokumen seperti 13 keping invois (D23-D36) dan 11 keping gambar yang melibatkan aktiviti perniagaannya (D38 1-11) bagi menyokong keterangannya.

Pembelaan OKT juga tidak bersifat “afterthought” kerana segala 10 pembelaan dan dokumen relevan yang menyokong pembelaannya telah dikemukakan dan ditunjukkan kepada saksi-saksi pendakwaan. KESIMPULAN 15

Berdasarkan segala pertimbangan di atas, Mahkamah mendapati pihak pembelaan telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah dalam kes pendakwaan. Oleh itu, Pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah ke atas OKT. Justeru Mahkamah telah melepaskan dan membebaskan OKT. 20 Tarikh: 17 OKTOBER 2025 t.t. 25 (MUHAMMAD AIMAN BIN AZAHAN) MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET PASIR PUTEH KELANTAN DARUL NAIM Timbalan Pendakwa Raya: TPR Yusnaliza Binti Mohammad Yusoff 5 Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara Cawangan Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan Peguam Bela OKT: Muhammad Hasif Bin Hasan 10 Tetuan Hasif Kumar & Co.