PREPARED BY : SHAHMUNI A/P T.

RAVICHANDRAN ( A163765) – FIRM 8

MUHAMMAD RIDZUAN BIN AB MAJID V PENDAKWA RAYA [2016] MLJU 1435
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA

1.0 FACTS OF THE CASE,

The appellant was arrested when a police team raided the appellant’s house. During the raid,
the appellant, his wife, children and friend were there. According to the police officer, the
appellant admited that he is having some improper items and brought the police team to his
bedroom where he took a small block of compressed dried plant matter suspected to be ganja
from the lower drawer of a cupboard and handed it to the police officer. Police officer then
carried out a further search of the room and he found a blue bag where 9 compressed blocks of
dried plant matter were recovered under the bed. An examination of the appellant’s friend
revealed one compressed block of ganja in his left trousers pocket. A search on the appellant’s
wife nothing incriminating was found on her. The appellant’s friend admitted that he have
bought ganja from the appellant on five occasions. Further, the chemist confirmed that upon
analysis, she found a total of 8,445 grams of Cannabis in the nine compressed blocks. There
after he was charged for charges. The trial judge convicted the appellant for possession of 106.9
grams of cannabis and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment from date of arrest and 10
strokes of the rattan and found the appellant guilty of trafficking in 8,445 grams of cannabis
and convicted and sentenced him to death. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant appeled
against the conviction and sentence on the trafficking charge.

2.0 ISSUES
1. Whether the similar fact evidence (evidence of the appellant’s friend) is admissible?

3.0 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S SUBMISSION

The testimony of SP3 on the premise that its probative value exceeded its prejudicial effect.

4.0 LEARNED COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION

Learned counsel submitted that the trial judge erred with the above finding. There was no
proper exercise of her discretion as it is quite clear that the prejudicial effects the appellant’s
friend similar fact evidence would outweigh its probative value. The reasons are the learned
trial judge had found that the appellant had direct custody and control of the 9 slabs of cannabis
and had invoked s.37(d) of the Act, to bring the appellant to be in ‘deemed’ possession of the
cannabis, relied on the definition of trafficking as defined under s.2 of the Act. As all the pre-
requisites to find a case of trafficking had been made out, there is no necessity to rely on the
highly prejudicial evidence of the appellant’s friend. In the exercise of her discretion the trial
judge did not do the balancing exercise from this angle. The reliance of the similar fact evidence
is indeed an overkill, an approach that is grossly unfair as the trial judge relied substantially on
the evidence of the appellant’s friend to find the appellant’s guilt. The evidence of the
appellant’s friend is highly prejudicial. The essence of his evidence is that the appellant is a
trafficker.

5.0 JUDGMENT & REASONING

The court held there was no merit on the learned counsel submission on this issue. The court
referred to the case Wong Yew Ming v. PP. In that case the prosecution had called PW8 a self-
confessed drug addict as their witness. PW8’s evidence against the first accused was that, he
bought half a straw tube of drugs from the first accused almost every day on at least twenty
(20) occasions and he paid RM45.00 on each occasion. The Sessions Court held that the said
additional evidence called by the prosecutions admissible to show system and that the accused
is known to have been dealing with drugs. ‘PW8’s evidence was relevant to show knowledge
and that the possession of the drug by the applicant was not accidental. In that case the evidence
of PW8 is admissible not because it tends to show that a person committing one offence is
likely to commit another but to show knowledge or intention of the applicant and that the
possession is not accidental. Similarly, in Mohammad b. Abdullah v. PP, PW7 had testified
that prior to that incident they had delivered cannabis to Abang Puchong. Learned counsel
submitted that the evidence should not be admitted by the court as it was prejudicial to the
appellant. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the probative value of the similar fact
evidence adduced through PW7 far outweighed its prejudicial effect. The evidence of PW7
was admissible not because it tends to show that a person committing one offence is likely to
commit another offence but to show knowledge or intention of the appellant and that possession
was not . As such we found that the evidence was rightly admitted by the learned trial judge.
In the present case, the court held that even without that similar fact evidence, there were
sufficient evidence to support the learned trial judge’s finding of guilt. There were
overwhelming evidence against the appellant such as the appellant was the tenant of the house,
appellant appeared anxious at the time the bedroom was being searched and appellant himself
admitted he smoke ganja.

6.0 CONCLUSION
The court dismissed the appeal by the appellant and affirmed the conviction and sentence
handed down by the learned trial judge.