PUTRAJAYA, Oct 13 — The Court of Appeal has upheld the life imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane imposed on a labourer for trafficking Methamphetamine found in the car he was driving five years ago.
A three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Lim Chong Fong, Datuk Noorin Badaruddin, and Datuk Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid made the ruling after dismissing an appeal by Mohd Jurib Mohamad Naib, 46, against his conviction and sentence handed down by the Sungai Petani High Court on August 14, 2023.
When delivering the unanimous decision, Justice Lim said there was no reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene in the earlier decision of the High Court.
He said the appellant denied having access to the drugs found in the vehicle, but the 10th prosecution witness (PW10), who is also the appellant’s younger brother, testified that the car was in the appellant’s possession and used by the latter.
Justice Lim noted that the High Court judge was not wrong in finding that the prosecution had successfully proven that the appellant had possession and control of the seized drugs.
“Therefore, this court finds the conviction to be safe, and the appellant’s appeal is dismissed,” he said.
Jurib was sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane after being found guilty of trafficking 177.51g of Methamphetamine at the roadside near the Tawar traffic light, heading towards Kuala Ketil, Baling, Kedah, at 4pm on April 14, 2020, under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
Earlier, lawyer Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud, representing the appellant, argued that his client was not the only person with access to the vehicle, as it was registered in his younger brother's name; therefore, the appellant did not have possession or control over the seized drugs.
However, Deputy Public Prosecutor Atiqah Abdul Karim @ Husaini argued that the appellant had control and possession of the car and the drugs, which were found in various parts of the vehicle.
“The appellant was arrested alone, and the testimony of his younger brother (PW10) was clear and consistent, stating that although the car was registered under his name, all payments and usage were by the appellant as the latter had been blacklisted.
“PW10 emphasised that he had never used the car despite it being registered under his name. Evidence from PW5, a police inspector, showed that the appellant attempted to speed off when he realised PW5 and his team were following the vehicle, leading to a chase.
“When the car was finally cornered, the appellant appeared anxious when PW5 approached and identified himself as a police officer,” she said.
