Mohd Ikmal Hafifi Bin Rashid (BJ-82D-1-08/2023)

consumes, administers to himself or suffers any other person, contrary to section 14 to administer to him any dangerous drug specified in Parts III and IV of the First Schedule; or ........ shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

For the purpose of this section "consumes" includes eat, chew, smoke, swallow, drink, inhale or introduce into the body in any manner or by any means whatsoever." BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593] ("KTJ"), di mana beban pembuktian sentiasa terletak di bahu pihak pendakwaan pada akhir kes pendakwaan, iaitu untuk membuktikan bahawa suatu kes prima facie telah berjaya diwujudkan terhadap tertuduh. Peruntukan tersebut adalah seperti yang berikut: "Section 180. Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution.

When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima faciecase against the accused.

If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal.

If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged the Court shall call upon the accused to enter on his defence.

For the purpose of this section, aprima faciecase is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.". Jika dirujuk pada seksyen 180 KTJ tersebut dan beberapa nas undang-undang penting (landmark cases) dari mahkamah atasan, undang-undang adalah jelas dan mantap bahawa pada akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah hendaklah mempertimbangkan dan menentukan sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mewujudkan suatu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh. Dalam menentukan kes prima facie tersebut, Mahkamah hendaklah membuat penilaian maksimum (maximum or positive evaluation) terhadap semua keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan di Mahkamah termasuk berkaitan dengan kebolehpercayaan (credibility) saksi-saksi. Maksud kes prima facie di bawah seksyen 180 KTJ dan penilaian maksimum tersebut telahpun diputuskan secara mantap dalam kes undang-undang seperti PP v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209, Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP [2003] 1 CLJ 734, Balachandran v. PP [2005] 2 MLJ 301, PP v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] 6 MLJ 393, Lee Kwan Woh v. Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ 301, Magendran Mohan v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 805 dan Abdullah Atan v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 9 CLJ

Dalam kes Balachandran v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Augustine Paul JCA (pada ketika itu) yang menyampaikan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menjelaskan maksud kes prima facie dan tujuan penggubalan seksyen 180 KTJ seperti yang berikut: “Section 180(1) makes it clear that the standard of proof on the prosecution at the close of its case is to make out a prima facie case while s. 182A(1) enunciates that at the conclusion of the trial the court shall consider all the evidence adduced and decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof on the prosecution at the end of its case and at the end of the whole case has thus been statutorily spelt out in clear terms. The submission made must therefore be ratiocinated against the background of the meaning of the phrase 'prima facie case' in s. 180. Section 180(2) provides that the court shall record an order of acquittal if a prima facie case has not been made out while s. 180(3) provides that if a prima facie case has been made out the accused shall be called upon to enter his defence.A prima facie case is therefore one that is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer. This in turn means that the evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal. The phrase 'prima facie case ' is defined in similar terms in Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary 11th Ed as: A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side. The result is that the force of the evidence adduced must be such that, if unrebutted, it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts exist or did happen. On the other hand if a prima facie case has not been made out it means that there is no material evidence which can be believed in the sense as described earlier. In order to make a finding either way the court must, at the close of the case for the prosecution, undertake a positive evaluation of the credibility and reliability of all the evidence adduced so as to determine whether the elements of the offence have been established. As the trial is without a jury it is only with such a positive evaluation can the court make a determination for the purpose of s. 180(2) and (3). Of course in a jury trial where the evaluation is hypothetical the question to be asked would be whether on the evidence as it stands the accused could (and not must) lawfully be convicted. That is so because a determination on facts is a matter for ultimate decision by the jury at the end of the trial. Since the court, in ruling that a prima facie case has been made out, must be satisfied that the evidence adduced can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal it follows that if it is not rebutted it must prevail. Thus if the accused elects to remain silent he must be convicted. The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie case.". Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada penghakiman yang dinyatakan oleh YAA Gopal Sri Ram HMP dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] 6 MLJ 393 mengenai beban pembuktian di akhir kes pendakwaan yang dinyatakan seperti berikut: “For the guidance of the courts below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by a trial court at the close of the prosecution’s case:

the close of the prosecution’s case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused;

(ii) ask yourself the question: If I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is ‘Yes’, then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is ‘No’ then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted;

(iii) after the defence is called, the accused elects to remain silent, then convict;

(iv)

(iv) after defence is called, the accused elects to give evidence, then go through the steps set out in Mat v Public Prosecutor [1963] MLJ 263. Manakala di dalam kes Abdullah Atan v. PP & Other Appeals (supra) pula, melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Mahkamah Persekutuan mentafsirkan prima facie seperti yang berikut: As to what constitutes 'a prima facie ' case, the judgment of Vincent Ng J (as he then was) in PP v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong (supra) was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we respectfully endorse His Lordship's views, at p. 225: What then constitutes a 'prima facie case'? 'Prima facie' means on the face of it or at first glance.... perhaps the most appropriate definition of 'a prima facie case' could be found in the Oxford Companion of Law (p. 987), which has it as: "A case which is sufficient for an answer. While prima facie evidence is evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, but is not conclusive". It would follow that there should be credible evidence on each and every ingredient of the offence. Credible evidence is evidence which has been filtered and which has gone through the process of evaluation. Any evidence which is not safe to be acted upon, should be rejected. (emphasis added) At p. 224, His Lordship said: ... to me, maximum evaluation simply means evaluation, on a prima facie basis, of each and every essential ingredient of the charge as tested in cross-examination. In other words, maximum evaluation connotes quantitative rather than qualitative evaluation of the evidence; with focus more on the evidential burden in terms of evidence led, rather than the persuasive burden in terms of qualitative degree of proof.". Berdasarkan nas-nas undang-undang di atas boleh dirumuskan bahawa tugas Mahkamah pada akhir kes pendakwaan ialah membuat penilaian maksimum terhadap setiap keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan berkenaan dengan intipati penting sesuatu pertuduhan dan menentukan sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh, iaitu jika tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri dan tertuduh memilih untuk berdiam diri, adakah keterangan-keterangan prima facie tersebut cukup untuk membuktikan bahawa tertuduh telah melakukan kesalahan tersebut melampaui keraguan yang munasabah dan seterusnya cukup untuk mensabitkan tertuduh dengan pertuduhan tersebut. Justeru itu, adalah menjadi beban pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan satu kes prima facie telah terbentuk sebelum OKT dipanggil untuk membela diri. ELEMEN PERTUDUHAN Di dalam kes PP v Mohd Amirul Amrie Bin Mohd Zimi (2025) CLJU 65, YA Moses Susayan telah menyatakan elemen-elemen pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) ADB adalah seperti berikut: “The elements of the offence under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the prosecution must prove the following to establish a prima facie case: a) It must prove that the urine sample in the bottle was indeed collected from the accused. This requires the chain of custody to be clearly established and verified from the point of collection to analysis by a chemist. b) The procedure for collecting and handling the urine specimen must adhere to the statutory requirements laid out in Section 31A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 to ensure the reliability and integrity of the evidence. c) The analysis of the urine specimen must confirm the presence of a drug listed under Part III of the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, to prove the accused’s consumption of a prohibited substance. Each of these elements must be demonstrated through credible evidence, including proper documentation, adherence to standard procedures, and testimony from relevant witnesses involved in the process” DAPATAN MAHKAMAH: 1- PIHAK PENDAKWAAN GAGAL MEMBUKTIKAN BAHAWA SAMPEL AIR KENCING ADALAH MILIK TERTUDUH Di dalam kes ini pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal untuk memanggil pegawai eskot yang mengiringi Orang Kena Tuduh (OKT) semasa spesimen air kencing diambil bagi menyokong keterangan SP1. Sebaliknya, hanya Pengadu yang juga merupakan Pegawai Penangkapan, iaitu SP1, telah dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan untuk mengesahkan kandungan spesimen air kencing adalah milik OKT. Namun begitu, keterangan SP1 tidak disokong oleh sebarang bukti sokongan mahupun eksibit penting seperti barang kes, gambar barang kes, keputusan ujian saringan yang dijalankan, serta borang bongkar. Ketiadaan eksibit-eksibit utama ini telah menjejaskan keseluruhan kes Pendakwaan dan menyebabkan rantaian keterangan serta barang kes terputus sepenuhnya. Ketiadaan gambar botol urin dan ketiadaan botol urin yang dikatakan milik OKT itu sendiri tidak dibawa di Mahkamah untuk disahkan oleh saksi-saksi menjadikan identiti dan kewudujan sampel air kencing OKT tersebut diragui. Selain itu, kegagalan Pendakwaan memanggil Ahli Patologi yang menjalankan ujian terhadap spesimen merupakan satu kelemahan ketara dalam usaha membuktikan pertuduhan. Ahli Patologi langsung tidak dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan atau mengesahkan kandungan laporan yang dirujuk sebagai ID5. Oleh kerana ID5 tidak ditandakan sebagai eksibit pendakwaan, dokumen tersebut tidak boleh diterima pakai dalam pembuktian kes terhadap OKT. Tambahan pula, Pegawai Penyiasat (SP2) telah mengesahkan bahawa barang kes telah hilang. Alasan yang diberikan semasa perbicaraan berhubung kehilangan tersebut tidak disokong oleh apa-apa keterangan saksi lain mahupun bukti dokumentari yang relevan. Oleh yang demikian, proses pengambilan urin tersebut boleh dikatakan tidak mematuhi prosedur pengambilan air kencing seperti yang ditetapkan di dalam seksyen 31A ADB 1952 maka sekaligus presumption di bawah seksyen 37 ADB tidak boleh digunapakai. Ini kerana di dalam kes Muhamad Shaharudin Shaik Alaudeen lwn PP

CLJU 173, YA Arik Sanusi Yeok Johari menyatakan bahawa: Memandangkan tiada saksi mata yang nampak OKT dan keterangan langsung yang menunjukkan OKT memasukkan dadah ke dalam badannya maka pihak pendakwaan bergantung kepada anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(k) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 … Untuk mengguna pakai anggapan tersebut, pihak pendakwaan hendaklah memastikan bahawa prosedur pengambilan urin OKT memenuhi Seksyen 31A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. 2- BOTOL URIN OKT ATAU GAMBAR BOTOL URIN TIDAK DIBAWA DI MAHKAMAH. Di dalam kes ini, sepanjang perbicaraan berjalan hanya SP1 dan SP2 saja dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan. Apa yang menarik perhatian Mahkamah sepanjang perbicaraan ini SP1 dan SP2 langsung tidak rujuk dengan gambar botol urin mahupun botol urin OKT itu sendiri. Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 Setuju gambar botol urin juga tidak ditunjukkan pada hari ini untuk mahkamah ini menilai sama ada botol urin ini wujud atau sebaliknya? J: ya … Di mana spesimen / botol urin ini sekarang? J: tidak pasti Pemeriksaan Utama SP2 Boleh Inspektor terangkan, kenapa tidak bawa barang-barang kes tersebut? - Berkaitan dengan barang kes dalam kes ini, ini merupakan seksyen 15(1), manakala barang kes melibatkan seksyen 12(2) berada di dalam stor. Kemudian yang melibatkan botol urin saya cuba cari tapi saya tidak jumpa. Adakah barang-barang tersebut ada diambil gambar? - Pada asalnya saya ambil tapi masa nak print gambar tersebut saya dapati tiada dalam rekod simpanan Pemeriksaan Balas SP2 Botol urin tersebut juga tidak berada di Mahkamah pada hari ini. - betul Setuju juga dengan saya bahawa gambar botol tersebut juga tidak ada pada hari ini. - Betul. … Tetapi gambar-gambar botol urin tersebut juga tidak ada di Mahkamah pada hari ini. - Betul Apa yang dapat diperhatikan di dalam keterangan SP1 dan SP2 ini, kedua-duanya mengesahkan bahawa semasa pemeriksaan mereka tidak ditunjuk dengan gambar botol urin mahupun botol urin itu sendiri. Di dalam kes PP v. Azahari Abdul Wahab [2009] 10 CLJ 464; [2009] 1 MLRH 245; [2009] MLJU 898; [2009] AMEJ 0118, Mahkamah telah menekankan bahawa tanpa pengemukaan botol urin secara fizikal boleh menimbulkan keraguan yang besar terhadap kes pendakwaan ini dapat dilihat bahawa YA Zamani Rahim, PP v. Azahari Abdul Wahab (supra) telah menyatakan bahawa: “[23] I would venture to say that failure to produce the said specimen bottle after the accused’s urine had been tested and analysed by the IMR, may or may not be fatal to the prosecution’s case depend on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The prosecution should not adopt an attitude that Gunalan Ramachandran & Ors, supra may provide an antidote to cure all cases of missing or nonproduction of exhibits after they have been examined or analysed by the expert. [24] In this case, the accused’s urine sample after analysis is not expected to be preserved but its bottle is. The bottle was said to carry a label with the accused’s particulars thereon. It was not produced. Was it lost or destroyed by the IMR officer?. There was no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution. It may be distinguished with the exhibits in Gunalan Ramachandran & Ors, supra. There, the missing exhibits were empty plastic packets and a weighing machine. They were not the subject matter of the charge. Their existence could be seen from the photographs. In this case, the urine in the said bottle which contained Amphetamine was the subject matter of the charge. No photograph was produced showing the said bottle with the accused’s particulars on it. The prosecution was taken to task by the learned counsel regarding the non-production of the said bottle…... [27] On the facts and circumstances of this case, the failure to produce the said bottle is fatal to the prosecution case. On this ground too, the accused was rightly acquitted and discharged by the learned magistrate at the close of the prosecution case. The prosecution appeal is hereby dismissed” Manakala di dalam kes PP v Mohd Amirul Amrie Bin Mohd Zimi (2025) CLJU 65, YA Moses Susayan menyatakan bahawa: “the failure to produce the urine sample bottle, which contained the accused’s identifying particulars, was fatal to the prosecution’s case. … its non-production left the chain of custody incomplete, creating serious doubts about the integrity and identity of the evidence. The prosecution’s inability to explain the bottle’s absence or to provide a clear link between the sample analysed and the accused further weakened the case, justifying the accused’s acquittal” …in this present case, the prosecution failed to produce the urine sample bottle in court, relying instead on unclear and inconsistent photographs that lacked visible serial numbers to definitively identify the sample as belonging to the respondent. This omission undermined the prosecution’s ability to establish an unbroken chain of custody and raised significant questions about the handling of the evidence” … “…the non-production of the urine sample bottle and the mishandling of evidence create serious doubt about the identity and reliability of the evidence. This justifies the Magistrate’s decision to acquit and discharge the respondent” …The deliberate failure to retrieve and present the urine sample bottle in court weakened the prosecution’s case” This intentional omission prevented key evidence from being examined, compromising the chain of custody and raising doubts about the integrity of the prosecution’s case. “This failure to present the primary evidence critically impacts the credibility of the case and justifies the Magistrate’s finding of reasonable doubt in favour of the respondent” Mahkamah berbalik kepada penghakiman di dalam kes PP v. Azahari Abdul Wahab [2009] 10 CLJ 464 - Zamani Rahim JC di YA JC menyatakan bahawa: “The learned Magistrate however, grounded the accused’s acquittal on the prosecution’s failure to produce the bottle containing the urine sample as an exhibit. In this case the accused’s urine sample after analysis was not expected to be preserved but the bottle was. The bottle was to carry a label with the accused’s particulars thereon. It was not produced. There was no explanation from the prosecution whether it was lost or destroyed by the IMR officer. The urine in the said bottle which contained Amphetamine was the subject matter of the charge. No photograph was produced showing the said bottle with the accused’s particulars on it.” Mahkamah selanjutnya merujuk kes Yusri Pialmi v. PP [2010] 6 CLJ 878 vang menyatakan seperti berikut: “In this case, the urine in the said bottle which contained Amphetamine was the subject matter of the charge. No photograph was produced showing the said bottle with the accused's particulars on it. The prosecution was taken to task by the learned counsel regarding the non-production of the said bottle. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the failure to produce the said bottle is fatal to the prosecution case. On this ground too, the accused was rightly acquitted and discharged by the learned magistrate at the close of the prosecution case. The prosecution appeal is hereby dismissed". Melainkan terdapat alasan tertentu kenapa gambar botol urin atau botol tidak dibawa seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam kes CHOO KAH CHONG lwn. PP [2019] CLJU 13, YA ASMADI HUSSIN menyatakan: Berkenaan botol sampel air kencing asal yang gagal dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan, terdapat penjelasan mengenai perkara ini oleh SP6 dan SP7. Botol sampel air kencing tersebut telah dimusnahkan sebagai sisa klinikal pada 20/7/2017. Pihak Jabatan Patologi HRPB Ipoh hanya menyimpan botol selama (2) bulan selepas tarikh keputusan dikeluarkan sebagaimana kandungan surat SP7 kepada SP6 bertarikh 26/9/2017 (eks. P16 di muka surat 16 RR Jilid 3). Keterangan lisan oleh saksi pendakwaan melalui SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SP6 dan SP7 mengenai botol sampel air kencing dan gambar eks. P4 hingga D adalah memadai bagi membuktikan fakta bahawa sampel air kencing yang diambil daripada Perayu merupakan sampel yang sama yang dianalisa oleh SP7. Namun demikian malangnya di dalam kes ini tiada gambar botol urin dikemukakan, tiada juga botol urin dikemukakan malah tiada alasan diberikan kenapa gambar dan botol urin tersebut tidak dikemukakan di dalam Mahkamah. Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan rujukan kes di atas, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa kegagalan pihak pendakwaan dalam kes ini untuk mengemukakan botol spesimen air kencing atau gambar botol berkenaan telah menjejaskan pembuktian kredibiliti dan integriti sampel urin milik OKT, pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa botol spesimen air kencing yang dinyatakan dalam keterangan saksi-saksi pihak pendakwaan adaiah sampel milik OKT sendiri apabila botol spesimen air kencing yang menjadi asas kepada pertuduhan terhadap OKT telah gagal untuk dikemukakan secara fizikal atau sekurang-kurangnya melalui gambar. 3- PROSEDUR PENGAMBILAN AIR KENCING GAGAL MEMATUHI PERUNTUKAN YANG TELAH DITETAPKAN DALAM SEKSYEN 31A ADB Berhubung dengan tafsiran seksyen 31(1 A) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, mahkamah telah membuat rujukan kepada kes-kes yang telah menyentuh tentang keperluan seksyen 31A(1a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 iaitu:- PP v. Samsul Arffin Bakar [2019] 2 CLJ 692; [2019] MLRAU 438 yang telah memutuskan bahawa the non-compliance of Section 31A(1) is not fatal to the prosecution's case. Muhammad Nazrin Avan v. PP [2020] CLJU 1513; [2020] 1 LNS 1513 di mana Lim Hock Leng J telah memutuskan bahawa: “... Even if the evidence were illegally obtained, as relevant evidence, it is still admissible.”

Manakala di dalam kes PP v. Mohamad Rasid Jusoh [2009] 9 CLJ Ravinthran Paramaguru J telah menyatakan seperti yang berikut: "...Assuming, for the sake of argument, the police breached the proviso to sub-s. 1A in obtaining the urine specimen from an arrested person, the evidence procured thereby will be considered as improperly or illegally obtained evidence. However it is settled law that in our system of justice, illegally or improperly obtained evidence is admissible provided it is relevant (see Kuruma v. R [1955] AC 197 and Saminathan v. Public Prosecutor [1936] CLJU 65; [1936] 1 LNS 65; [1937] MLJ 39).." Di dalam kes ini Mahkamah mendapati terdapat kegagalan pihak Pendakwaan memanggil mana-mana pegawai atau anggota pengiring (eskot) semasa pengambilan sampel urin dan ini merupakan suatu kelemahan serius (“fatal”) dalam kes ini, yang telah menyebabkan terputusnya rantaian barang kes. Selain itu, ketiadaan gambar-gambar berkaitan barang kes, gambar tandas, serta ketiadaan keputusan ujian turut mencacatkan kes pihak Pendakwaan, sedangkan beban pembuktian sememangnya terletak pada pihak Pendakwaan di peringkat prima facie. Ketiadaan ekshibit-ekshibit tersebut serta keterangan berkaitan menyebabkan rantaian keterangan dan barang kes tidak dapat dibuktikan dengan sempurna. Justeru, Mahkamah mendapati peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 31A Akta Dadah Berbahaya (ADB) tidak dipatuhi dalam kes ini. Selain dari itu, ID5 tidak pernah disahkan atau ditandakan oleh mana-mana Ahli Patologi. Dokumen ID5 yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah semasa perbicaraan tidak mempunyai sebarang pemberatan kerana individu yang menyediakan dokumen tersebut tidak dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan, dan tiada sesiapa daripada Jabatan Patologi tampil untuk mengesahkan bahawa sampel urin tersebut adalah milik Orang Kena Tuduh (OKT) dan mengesahkan terdapat dadah di dalam air kencing OKT. Kegagalan pihak Pendakwaan untuk mengemukakan saksi dan dokumen-dokumen ini menimbulkan beberapa persoalan penting yang perlu dijawab di Mahkamah, antaranya: a. Adakah benar sampel air kencing tersebut milik OKT? b. Apakah jenis ujian sebenar yang telah dijalankan oleh Ahli Patologi? c. Adakah benar laporan tersebut dikeluarkan oleh Ahli Patologi sendiri? Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa kegagalan pihak Pendakwaan mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen dan saksi-saksi berkaitan yang boleh menjawab persoalan di atas mengundang pemakaian Seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950. 4- ADVERSE INFERENCE Memandangkan tiada gambar botol urin, tiada botol urin, tiada pegawai patologi dipanggil untuk mengesahkan laporan patologi yang masih bertanda ID5, maka Mahkamah mendapati adalah wajar seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan digunapakai dalam kes ini. Di dalam kes PP v Mohd Amirul Amrie Bin Mohd Zimi (2025) CLJU 65, YA Moses Susayan menyatakan bahawa: “Prosecution witnesses, particularly SP5, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not summoning Aliman despite concerns raised by the defence. SP3 asserted that he handled the urine specimen and directly passed it to SP5, yet the defence raised questions about Aliman’s potential role in handling the evidence. The prosecution’s failure to clarify this ambiguity or call Aliman as a witness resulted in reasonable doubt about the integrity of the chain of custody. Consequently, the Magistrate invoked Section 114(g), presuming that Aliman’s testimony, if presented, would have been unfavourable to the prosecution, leaving a significant evidentiary gap and undermining the reliability of the prosecution’s case” KESIMPULAN Oleh yang demikian berdasarkan kepada keterangan saksi-saksi, eksibit-eksibit serta hujahan-hujahan yang telah difailkan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap OKT, oleh itu OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan tersebut tanpa diperintahkan untuk membela diri. ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN DISEDIAKAN OLEH Mohamad Ibrahim MAJISTRET