You are on page 1of 3


In Malaysia, the usage of dangerous drugs is an offence which has been laid down in
the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, specifically section 15 of the act. Section 15(1)(a) of the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 deals with the offence of the consumption or more aptly put, the
self-administration of any dangerous drug. If one is caught for self-administration dangerous
drugs, then he shall be punished for imprisonment not exceeding two years and fine not
exceeding RM20,000. Similarly to section 10(2)(b) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 that reads
any person smokes or otherwise consumes prepared opium or frequents any place or places
used for the purpose of smoking or otherwise consuming prepared opium shall be guilty of an
offence against the act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

When abuse of drug happens, the potential for addiction is increased due to the physical
need that the body develops once the drug's effects are achieved. Abuse turns into addiction
through chemical changes that the drug supplies to the body when used regularly. When a
person consumes such dangerous drugs, it can also cause brain damage to the consumer. These
drugs provide additional or an overload of chemicals to the brain causing interference with the
natural process1. Worst case scenario is that the usage of dangerous drugs may also cause death
to the consumer. This proven the relevancy of this section that the usage of dangerous drugs
should be an offence in this country.

In case of HASRULFAHMY SAMSUDDIN V PP2, the appellant arrested under section 15(a)
of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which is he be guilty for consumes drugs and guilty for an
offence under that Act. Appellant been arrest because appellant does not come to the
headquarter (HQ) Bukit Aman. During be arrest, the appellant had to do urine test that fall
under section 31A(1A) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. During the urine test, its show that
appellant had consumed drug which is methamphetamine into his body.

Aubri John. What Are the Dangers of Drug Abuse? (2017) Retrieved from
[2017] 1 LNS 52
Section 37(k) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 arise in this case which is any dangerous drugs is
found in the urine of the person charged as a result of a urine test conducted under section 31A,
the person shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved. The appellant had failed to prove
the contrary that the result that drug of methamphetamine be founded in his urine. The appellant
founded guilty.

Consumption of dangerous drugs can be factor to increase the punishment given to the accused.
In case of PP V MUHAMAD ASIKIN BAKAR3, the accused done two crime which is
possession of cannabis under section 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and consumption of
dangerous drugs under Section 15 of the same Act. The prosecution who dissatisfied with the
Magistrate’s decision had make an appeal. The prosecutor arises about the accused had
previous convictions which are theft and possession of drugs. For the consumption of drugs
should be counted and be factor to increase or give more heavy punishment to the accused. The
court allowed the appellant’s appeal and set aside the sentences imposed by the Magistrate and
substituted in its place the sentence of 36 months' imprisonment for the first amended charge
and 20 months' imprisonment for the additional charge.

Another case is NOOR SHARIFUL RIZAL NOOR ZAWAWI V PP4, is about the urine test
that been taken to the appellant. As been stated in section 31A of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952,
the officer can do medical examines to the person arrested as may be reasonably necessary.
This give power to them to do like urine test to the person that been arrested. However, in this
case the appellant is arise an issue about the procedure that done by the officer in charge. The
appellant submitted that the Inspector General’s Standing Orders (IGSO) and the Kementerian
Kesihatan Malaysia Guidelines (KKMG) require two bottles to be used to collect urine sample
from suspected drug dependants. He only be given one bottles instead of two. This was contrary
with the procedure that should been followed.

Having considered the issues of law raised, the facts and the circumstances of this case, the
court were unanimous that the appellant's conviction was erroneous and not safe. Court allowed
the appellant's appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence. The appellant was accordingly
acquitted and discharged. Its show that important of procedure that need to be follow. Although
the power been stated in the section provided, but the procedure must also be followed.

[2008] 10 CLJ 431
[2017] 4 CLJ 434
The procedure is important because many cases that involves of drugs and urine test, the
accused been acquitted. This can be found in case of PP V MOHAMAD RASID BIN JUSOH
and PP V AZAHARI ABDUL WAHAB. Both case the accused been acquitted by only
challenged the procedure be done during the urine test. This problem should be solved or if not
many accused can be acquitted because of the small issue.