P.Vijayarajan A/L Pannair Silvam (JA-45A-32-04/2021)

P. Vijayarajan A/L Pannair Selvam (NRIC: 750123-01-6735) was arrested on 11.4.2019 and charged with trafficking 353.76gram of Cannabis under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

Bahawa kamu dituduh dengan kehendak Pendakwa Raya dan pertuduhan terhadap kamu dibacakan seperti berikut: "Bahawa kamu pada 11/4/2019 jam lebih kurang 2.15 tengah hari di No 57-A, Jalan Kenanga 3, Taman Desa Cemerlang, Ulu Tiram dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Neheri Johor Darul Ta'zim telah mengedar seberat bersih

76gram dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.” Summary of the prosecution case.

On 11.4.2019, at around 2.15pm, Insp Syed Mohd Safrizat bin Syed Abdullah (SP3) led a team of policemen from IPD Seri Alam, Johor, in a raid on the $ 2^{nd} $ floor of a shoplot with the address at No 57-A, Jalan Kenaga 3, Taman Desa Cemerlang, Ulu Tiram, Johor.

After 10 minutes of observation, SP3 and his men noticed the door of the ground floor of the shoplot was closed but not locked. They entered the shoplot and proceeded upstairs to the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ floor. Upon reaching the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ floor, they entered the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ room on the right.

When SP3 entered the room, which was closed but not locked, he saw the accused sitting on the floor. Beside him was an open yellow plastic bag (P12A) containing a packet of dried leaves suspected to be cannabis (P6A), 1 bundle of nipah leaves P(12B), a plastic packet with the words 'Chai Aik Trading Sdn Bhd'(P12C) containing tobacco and a black and orange coloured lighter (P12D).

Upon a further search of the room, SP3 found a tied red plastic bag (P12E) on the floor near the wall behind the accused on the floor near the wall on the right side next to the accused. See page 26 of NOP; "S：Ok. J : Seterusnya pemeriksaan lanjut Yang Arif saya turut menjumpai 1 plastik besar berwarna merah di dinding sebelah kanan tertuduh Yang Arif dalam keadaan berikat Yang Arif. Saya buka dan buat pemeriksaan di hadapan tertuduh di dalamnya mengandungi 4 ketulan kecil tumbuh-tumbuhan kering disyaki dadah jenis ganja dan juga 1 ketulan besar tumbuh-tumbuhan kering disyaki dadah jenis ganja Yang Arif di dalam plastik merah tersebut. Seterusnya Yang Arif, pemeriksaan dalam bilik tersebut saya jumpa 1 balutan plastik lutsinar saya syaki plastik tersebut digunakan untuk membalut dadah jenis ganja Yang Arif dan juga 1 pisau pemotong jenis boleh laras tertera tulisan Shenhuan.”

Inside P12E were 4 small compact packets of dried leaves (P6B (1) to P6B (4)) and one bigger packet of dried leaves (all 5 of them suspected of being cannabis), a cutter with the brand 'Sheng Yuen' (P12G) and a roll of clear wrapping plastic. On top of the wooden cabinet, SP3 found a Maybank passbook under the accused's name (P12H).

During the body search of the accused who was under the influence of drugs, no incriminating items were found. Consequently, SP3 arrested the accused and seized the impugned drugs together with the items listed above. These were brought to the police station at Seri Alam. These items together with the impugned drugs were duly recorded in the search list (P15) and acknowledged by the accused. SP3 lodged a police report (P13) about the events. Subsequently on the same day, the items and impugned drugs were delivered to the investigating officer Insp Sivasankar a/l Mohana Dass (SP4).

At the close of the prosecution case, based on maximum evaluation of the credible evidence and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, I had to decide whether a prima facie case under s180 of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) had been made out against the accused. See the off-cited case of Balachandran v PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 (FC) and Looi Kow Chai v PP [2003] 2 MLJ 65 (CA).

The issues which I had to decide are as follows: i. whether the impugned drugs seized on 11.4.2019 are dangerous drugs as listed in the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ schedule Part III of s2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA); ii. whether the accused was in possession of the drugs, namely the accused had knowledge and custody or control of the drugs; iii. whether there was a break in the chain of evidence as presented by the prosecution; iv. whether the prosecution had successfully made out a prima facie case against the accused according to the charge P2. FIRST ISSUE Whether the impugned drugs seized on 11.4.2019 are dangerous drugs as listed in the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ schedule Part III of s 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA).

The testimony of SP1 as well as his chemist report P5 showed that the compressed blocks ("SA1") and ("SB1" - "SB5") recovered was Cannabis with a net weight 353.76gram.

The counsel did not challenge SP1's analysis nor his chemist report in P5. The acceptance of expert evidence from the chemist by court has been well established in the off-cited case of Munusamy v PP [1987] 1MLJU 492 (SC).

However, the counsel challenged the calibration of the machines Sartorius and Mettler Toledo used in the analysis. According to the certificates of calibration for Sartorius the calibration date is 21.1.2018 and date of issue is 14.2.2018. The Certificate is marked as exhibit P7 and Repeatability Test Form as P7A.

Similarly, the calibration records for the machine Mettler Toledo showed the certificate of calibration to be 23.1.2018 and date of issue to be 13.2.2018. The certificate is marked as exhibit P8 and Repeatability Test Form as P8A. Both certificates P7 and P8 have a 3 year validity period of both certificates for a period. This was confirmed by the testimony of chemist Sidek bin Ahmad (SP1) as set out in page 4 & 5 of NOP; "S : Saya ingin rujuk, tadi Encik Sidek kata Januari 2018 sehingga? J : Antara kaliberasi saya juga ada buat intermediate check setiap 6 bulan sekali. Tarikh paling hampir adalah 16.01.2019. Saya gunakan 2 jenis alat timbang. S : Encik Sidek ada bawa ya sijil? J : Ada. S : Encik Sidek, kalau berpandukan kepada P7, P7A, P8 dan P8A ini dekat mana nak tengok tarikh kaliberasi dan tarikh sah dia? J : Tarikh kaliberasi ada pada penjuru kanan sebelah atas. S : P7 Boleh bacakan? J ：21.1.2018. S ： Bagi P8? J ：23.1.2018. S : Dan tempoh sah laku berapa lama? J : Kebiasaannya 3 tahun kita akan kaliberasi semula. Setiap 6 bulan sekali akan buat intermediate check. S : Adakah kamu sendiri terlibat dalam proses kaliberasi ini? J : Tidak Yang Arif. Kaliberasi dijalankan oleh makmal Ibu Pejabat kami."

Furthermore, other than the bare assertion that the certificates were invalid, the counsel failed to produce any evidence to contradict the testimony of SP1. Moreover, SP1 had produced the relevant worksheet (P10A, P10B, P10C) for the tests conducted by him on the drugs. These 3 worksheets reference No. Makmal 19-FR-J-02479 matched the reference in the official receipt (P4) issued by the chemist department when the drugs were surrendered by the policeman SP4. Consequently, the court is constrained to dismiss this allegation.

Since the evidence of SP1 is unchallenged, I am satisfied that the drugs seized on 11.4.2019 are Cannabis and are of the type listed as dangerous drugs under Part III of s2 of DDA. SECOND ISSUE Whether the accused was in possession of the drugs, namely the accused had knowledge and custody or control of the drugs;

Since the accused had been charged under s39B(1)(a) DDA, possession is an essential ingredient under these offences. It is trite that what constitutes "possession" is a question of law. See the case of Yee Ya Mang v. PP [1972] 1 MLJ 120 (HC) and PP v. Badrulsham bin Baharom [1988] 2 MLJ 585 (HC). However, it is a question of fact whether the accused is in possession of it. The onus is on the Prosecution to prove this. See the case of Muhammed bin Hassan v. PP [1998] 2 CLJ 170 (FC) at page 191: "In our view, to constitute "possession" under s. 37(da) of the Act, so as to be capable of forming one of the ingredients thereunder thereby giving rise to the presumption of trafficking, there must be an express affirmative finding (as opposed to legal presumption) of possession as understood in criminal law, based on evidence."

The meaning of possession which has a mental and physical element has been well elaborated on in the off-cited case of Chan Pean Leon v. PP [1956] 1 MLJ 237, where Thompson J had explained possession to mean that a person must not only be so situated that he can deal with the thing as if it belongs to him, he must also have the intention to deal with it if he so wishes. He had further said that intention is a matter of fact which cannot be proved by direct evidence but by inference from the surrounding circumstances.

Hence the Prosecution would have to prove both the mental (mens rea) and physical (actus rea) element as there can be no possession if either one is missing. However, in certain circumstances there can be a statutory presumption of possession as set out in s.37 DDA. See the case of Ibrahim Mohamad & Anor v. PP [2011] 4 CLJ 113 (FC) at page 124 where his Lordship Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ had said as follows: [15] The law is well settled that having only custody or control over the said drugs is insufficient to establish "possession". The physical act of custody or control must be accompanied with evidence that the accused had knowledge of the said drugs. In the absence of any statutory presumption, knowledge has to be proved either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Mere knowledge alone without exclusivity of either physical custody or control or both is insufficient in law to constitute possession, let alone trafficking. (See the case of Chan Pean Leon v. PP [1956] 1 LNS 17).”

It is the prosecution's contention that because the accused was present in the room where the drugs were discovered, he had custody or control over the drugs. With the drugs inside P12A on the floor beside him and those inside P12E on the floor near the wall beside him, the accused had control or custody over the drugs. The room itself is a small room with basic bedding and a small stand with an open drawer as seen in P14 (11), (12) and (13). On the wooden cabinet, was a Maybank savings account book (P12H) which belonged to the accused.

Although the door to the room was not locked, it was closed and no one else was present when the police entered the room. There were no occupants in the other rooms on the floor. See the cross examination of SP3 at page 41 of NOP; “S : Insp boleh Insp juga bagitau semasa kamu ke sana kamu langsung tidak membuat pemeriksaan mana-mana bilik lain? J : Memang tak ada buat pemeriksaan Yang Arif sebab dalam bilik tersebut semua tak ada orang. Mah : Macam mana kamu tahu kalau kamu tak buat pemeriksaan? J : Telah ketuk 2-3 bilik dalam itu tidak dibuka Yang Arif. S : Saya katakan kepada Insp kalau Insp telah membuka pintu bilik hujung, kamu akan mendapati kehadiran Sara tersebut. J : Saya tidak setuju Yang Arif. S : Saya juga ingin mengatakan kepada Insp, semasa kamu jumpa OKT dalam bilik tersebut, barang-barang dadah yang dijumpai dalam bilik tersebut adalah kepunyaan Sara dan bukan tertuduh. J : Saya tidak setuju Yang Arif. S : Saya diberitahu bahawa tertuduh juga telah memberitahu Insp berkenaan Sara ini yang selalu ke bilik tertuduh dan semasa beliau tiada. J : Tidak ada Yang Arif."

The accused's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence proving that the Room was rented by the accused. Furthermore, it is noted that there were 9 other rooms on the same floor and the police failed to investigate the occupants of these other rooms. The accused maintained that the failure to do so meant that the possibilities of access to the drugs cannot be discounted. In fact, the accused claimed that a person named Sara who stayed in the end room on the same floor also had access to the Room and that the drugs actually belonged to her. See page 39 of NOP; "S : Insp saya juga dinasihati oleh tertuduh bahawa semasa beliau ditahan, beliau telah memberitahu Insp yang barang-barang salah iaitu dadah yang dijumpai adalah kepunyaan seorang bernama Sara. J : Saya tidak setuju Yang Arif. S : Selain dari itu OKT ada memberitahu Insp bahawa Sara ini menginap di bilik paling hujung dalam bangunan ini. J : Tidak ada Yang Arif."

Since the accused was arrested inside the Room, the status of whether he was a tenant or otherwise is irrelevant to the charge of possession. The issue of residency is not a prerequisite for possession. It is not the requirement that only if the accused had legitimate rights to be in the Room that he is in possession of the drugs.

Regarding Sara, no details were provided to the police. The name Sara itself is likely a nickname or abbreviation and further particulars would be necessary for the police to identify this person Sara. While Sara may or may not reside in the room at the end of the floor, the police are not obligated to investigate further based solely on a name. Furthermore, the accused was in no condition to inform SP3 of "Sara's" existence at the time, as he was under the influence of drugs. See the cross examination of SP3 at page 43 of NOP; "S : Insp juga boleh mengesahkan kepada kami bahwa semasa tertuduh tersebut ditahan beliau langsung tidak membuat apa-apa halangan atau melawan balik kamu. Dia dengan sedia ikut kamu setelah ditahan. J : Untuk makluman Yang Arif tertuduh dalam keadaan khayal Yang Arif dan semasa saya membuat soal siasat, apa yang dia cakap, saya pun tak faham Yang Arif. S : Dan Insp juga mengatakan apa yang dia beritahu juga kamu tak berapa faham kan pasal dia khayal kan. Pasal itu saya sekali lagi mengatakan beliau ada memberitahu kehadiran Sara pada Insp. J : Saya tidak setuju Yang Arif. Memang tidak ada Yang Arif."

Furthermore, as the accused was the sole person occupying the enclosed room, the presence or absence of Sara does not negate the fact that the accused had custody and control of the drugs. This same principle applies to the individuals occupying other rooms on the same floor.

The prosecution sought to show that the accused was the tenant of the room and had smoked cannabis relying on the testimony of Thanaletchumy a/p Mar, Jashim Mozamder and Hamidah bte Mohd Safi'e. However, when they were not able to appear in court to testify, the prosecution applied for their prior statements given to police under s112 of Evidence Act (EA) to be admitted into evidence. I allowed it and marked their respective statements as exhibit P19, P20 and P21 subject to the prosecution demonstrating that they had taken all reasonable measures to secure the witnesses' attendance. See the case of PP v Lee Jun Ho & anor [2011] 6 MLJ 220 (CA).

However, after reviewing the measures taken by the police to secure the attendances of Thanaletchumy, Jashim and Hamidah, I am compelled to conclude that the police failed to strictly comply with the requirement of s32 of EA. Consequently, I will treat P19, P20 and P21 as inadmissible as evidence of hearsay. As such, P19, P20 and P21 will not be taken into consideration. See the case of Shamugan s/o Kanapathy v Pappah d/o Chinniah Nadar [1994] 2 CLJ 265 at page 269, his lordship Edgar Joseph Jr, SCJ opined as follows: "Counsel for the defendant had objected to the admissibility of the two letters, P3 and P4, on the ground that it was hearsay, the uncle not having been called to testify. Counsel for the plaintiff replied that he would comply with s 32 of the Evidence Act 1950. I overruled the objection subject to compliance with s 32 of the Evidence Act 1950. At the end of the day, however, no attempt had been made to comply with the strict requirements of s 32; not even the prerequisites of that section, let alone any of the exceptions laid down therein. In my view, therefore, these letters are inadmissible in evidence being hearsay, and I rule that they are worthless as evidence."

While the accused has custody and control over the drugs, did he have knowledge of it? After all, mere custody and control of the drugs are insufficient to prove possession under s 39B (1)(a) of DDA. The accused must also be proven to have had knowledge of the drugs found in the Room.

It is trite that knowledge can typically only be proven by drawing the necessary inferences from the facts and circumstances of the case. See the off-cited case of PP v Reza Mohd Ahmad Shah [2002] 4 MLJ 13 where the learned judge opined as follows: "Thus, in drawing inferences from proved facts, the court is entitled to infer knowledge on the part of a person on the assumption that such a person has the ordinary understanding expected of him. The court is not concerned with the knowledge of a reasonable man but with reasonable inferences to be drawn from a situation. There are many circumstances from which knowledge can be inferred. One instance is the inference to be drawn from the act of a person in absconding or fleeing from the scene of a crime."

In the present case the drugs were discovered on the floor immediately beside and behind the accused. In fact, when the police entered the Room, the accused appeared to be under the influence of drugs. The drugs were stored in plastic bags within easy reach of the accused. Consequently, it is reasonable to infer that the accused had knowledge of the drugs. See examination of SP3 at page 37 of NOP; “S : Dan masa mula-mula Insp masuk ke dalam bilik ini bagaimana keadaan OKT ini? J : Untuk makluman Yang Arif keadaan OKT dalam keadaan khayal Yang Arif. S : Macam mana khayal itu? J : Ok Yang Arif, daripada pengalamn saya membuat serbuan apabila seseorang, saya maksudkan penagih. Apabila dia menghisap sesuatu barang salah dadah kita boleh tengok reaksi tersebut. Reaksi dia, dia akan cakap.. Mah : Goyang? J : Betul, goyang. Lepas itu dia akan bercakap melalut,cakap tak betul sedikit. Kita boleh cam dia baru lepas hisap dadah,itu pengalamn saya Yang Arif. S : Dan keadaan dia sendiri dalam keadaan macam mana masa masuk itu? J : Masa masuk itu dia duduk di atas lantai dan masa saya datang itu dia macam terperangjat dalam keadaan khayal. Saya kenalkan diri sebagai polis baru saya buat pemeriksaan di dalam bilik tersebut. Tapi untuk makluman Yang Arif masa saya masuk itu ada bau yang mana bau ganja itu baru lepas dihisap Yang Arif."

Hence the issue is whether the accused was so positioned in such a way that he had power to deal with the drugs as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and intended to do so should the occasion arise. From the testimonies and evidence adduced, the answer is Yes. See the case of Siew Yoke Keong v PP [2013] 3 MLJ 630 (FC). THIRD ISSUE Whether there was a break in the chain of evidence as presented by the prosecution

The prosecution has to show that the chain of evidence from the period that the drugs listed in the search list P15 were recovered by SP3 and were then handed over to SP4 before being submitted to the chemist department until the completion of the analysis by the chemist SP1 are the same substances namely Cannabis. See the case of Gunalan Ramachandran & anor v PP [2004] 4 CLJ 551 (CA).

According to the evidence of SP3, the drugs in P5 which were duly marked and signed by the accused were delivered to SP4 on 11.4.2019 before being handed over to the Department of Chemistry Malaysia on 14.4.2019 in a box marked as "SM" and sealed with "POLIS DI-RAJA MALAYSIA 758".

As such, the court is satisfied that there is no break in the chain of evidence. See the case of Christopher Uchenna Efogwo v PP [2017] 1 LNS 1479. FOURTH ISSUE Whether the prosecution had successfully made out a prima facie case against the accused according to the charge P2.

At the end of the prosecution case, after I subjected the prosecution evidence and testimonies by their witnesses to a maximum evaluation I find that the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case against the accused for trafficking under s39B of DDA. Accordingly, the accused was called upon to enter his defence.

Since the weight of the drugs exceeded the statutory prescribed limit, the presumption of s37(da) applies wherein the accused is presumed to be trafficking the drugs. The accused will need to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities. See the case of Mohamad Radhi Yaakob v PP 1 CLJ 9 (rep) 3 (SC). DEFENCE CASE Whether the defence had managed to raise any reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

The accused elected to give his sworn testimony from the witness box. He also filed a written statement which is marked as PSSD1.

The brief facts of the accused's testimony can be summarised as follows: i. The accused worked as a van driver to transport factory workers. On 11.4.2019, after completing his shift, he went to the bank to attend to personal matters. Due to the nature of his work which caused the accused to perspire, he kept a spare shirt in the room for changing. Prior to consuming the drugs that day, the accused placed his Maybank savings book P12H on top of the drawer. Besides these 2 items, no other personal items of the accused were found in the room. ii. The accused admitted to being a drug user with a history of addiction. He admitted that his typical daily consumption was 2 to 3 grams of cannabis. His friend Sara would consume more. Together their consumption would increase to approximately 8 to 10 grams of cannabis per day. Sara resided in the room at the end of the same hallway. He further admitted to having been arrested on numerous prior occasions for drug related offences. He maintained that the drugs found in the room were for personal use together with Sara and were not for trafficking. iii. To support his defence, the accused called his brother in law Thiagarajah a/l Vyapury (SD2) as his witness. He testified that since he married the accused's sister 34 years ago, he had known the accused to be a drug addict. He had been arrested by police and fined in court multiple times due to his addiction. The accused's parents and siblings had attempted unsuccessfully to advise him against his drug use. Ultimately the accused's addiction led his wife and 2 children to leave him. iv. After the accused had moved to a house in Ulu Tiram, SD2 had not visited or seen the accused for the past 4 to 5 years. Since then, SD2 was unaware of what had happened to the accused during that period.

It is clear that the crux of the accused's argument is that the drugs were for personal use. It is a defence which the court recognises as seen in the case of Ng Chai Kem v PP [1994] 2 CLJ 593 (SC) at page 600 where the learned judge Wan Yahya bin Pawan Teh (SCJ) observed as follows: "Soal samada seseorang itu penagih atau pengedar atau kedua-duanya adalah tertakluk kepada kebolehpercayaan keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah. Yang zahir daripada kes ini ialah ada kemungkinan seseorang penagih memiliki dadah yang berlebihan dari berat yang ditetapkan di bawah s. 37 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 untuk bekalan dirinya sendiri dan kemungkinan ini boleh digunakan dalam pembelaan untuk mematahkan anggapan yang dia adalah seorang pengedar dadah. Samada pembelaan itu akan berjaya atau sebaliknya bergantung kepada kebolehannya meyakinkan Mahkamah bahawa jumlah dadah yang dimilikinya itu adalah semata-mata untuk bekalan keperluannya sendiri sebagai penagih dadah." See also the case of Cohen Lorraine Philis & anor v PP [1989] 1 CLJ 18 (SC).

Although SD2 had not met the accused for the 4 to 5 years prior to his arrest, it does not invalidate the fact that the accused was a drug user. The evidence of SD2 about the accused's addiction was not challenged by the prosecution. Furthermore, the accused had a history of being arrested on numerous occasions for drug related offences. These were not disputed by the prosecution which supports the claim that the accused was a long-term drug user.

At the close of the defence case, it remains a question of fact whether the defence has succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. See the case of Azhar Lazim V PP [2012] 5 MLJ 1 (CA).

The circumstances of the arrest corroborated the accused's defence that he was a drug user. On the day of the arrest the accused was found to be under the influence of drugs. Furthermore, the drugs were found on the floor both near and behind the accused. These facts are more consistent with the accused being a user rather than a trafficker of the drugs. The accused's defence was not inherently improbable and unbelievable. See the case of Suzimi Shaari v PP [2011] 5 CLJ 259 (CA) where the learned judge Hasan Lah CJA opined as follows: [57] We had carefully considered the accused defence in respect of the second charge and we were of the considered view that his defence that the cannabis found in his bedroom was for his own consumption, when considered with the fact that the amount of the cannabis involved was small and it was kept in his bedroom, was not inherently improbable and unbelievable. In our view, the learned trial judge had erred in rejecting the accused's defence. The accused, in our view, had raised doubt in the prosecution's case that the cannabis found in his bedroom was for trafficking. We accordingly allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction under s. 39B(1)(a) and punishable under s. 39B(2) of the Act. In substitution thereof we found him guilty of possession of the proscribed drug and convicted him under s. 6 read with s. 39A(2) of the Act. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. We did not make any order of whipping."

As a result, the accused successfully raised reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case that the accused was trafficking the drugs. The accused had successfully rebutted the presumption of trafficking on balance of probabilities. See the case of Liam Heng Boon v PP [2014] 5 MLJ 259.

After evaluating the evidence and submissions, I find the accused has successfully raised the defence of self-consumption. As such, the presumption of s37(da) of DDA for trafficking has been rebutted.

Accordingly the Court amended the charge from s 39B to s.6 DDA 1952 and punishable under s.39A(2) of DDA.

After hearing submissions from both the accused's counsel and prosecution, I sentenced the accused to an imprisonment of 12 years from the date of arrest. Since the accused is more than 50 years old, there will be no imposition of canning by rotan. Dated: 4/6/2026 (KAN WENG HIN) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU Counsel:- For the Prosecution: Tuan Umar Faiz bin Abdul Kohar Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor, Aras 2, Bangunan Dato' Ja'afar Muhammad, Kota Iskandar, Nusajaya Johor Darul Ta'zim. For the Accused: Tay, Bernard & Cheong (Johor Bahru) No.19A, Jalan Harimau, Tarum Century Garden 80250 Johor Bahru Johor Darul Ta'zim.