SHAH ALAM - Three men were acquitted and discharged by the High Court here today on charges of trafficking more than 96 kilogrammes of drugs into the country.
Judge Dr Wendy Ooi Su Ghee made the ruling after finding that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie against Muhammad Amiruddin Abd Hadi, 30, V. Vijandran Nair, 35, and Muhammad Faiz Ahmad, 36, at the end of the prosecution’s case.
She said there were serious weaknesses in the case presented by the prosecution against the three accused.
In the brief judgment, the judge said there were contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the identification of the case items and the number of boxes of drugs seized.
"The court also took note of the failure of the police to submit photographs during the seizure, in addition to the failure to submit the original closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage.
"In addition, the investigating officer failed to examine the evidence presented by the accused, thereby undermining the credibility of the prosecution’s case and prejudicing the defence. As such, the three accused are acquitted and discharged without being called to enter their defence,” said Wendy.
The three men were jointly charged with trafficking methamphetamine, weighing 96,700.3 grammes, near a house in Taman Batu Caves, Gombak, at about 3pm on Aug 6, 2021.
The charge, framed under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and punishable under Section 39B(2) of the same law, read together with Section 34 of the Penal Code, provides the death sentence or life imprisonment if convicted.
The prosecution was conducted by deputy public prosecutor Ainul Mardiyah Mohd Ali.
Muhammad Amiruddin was represented by lawyers Nik Saiful Adli Burhan, Muhamad Asri Abdul Hamid and Md Yusuf Md Idris, while lawyers Zulkifli Awang and Mohd Ruzaini Zulkifli represented Vijandran Nair, and Muhammad Faiz by lawyer Datuk Geethan Ram Vincent.
Azimah said that while the defendant may have held a position of influence, it is unacceptable and unprecedented in law to allow individuals with such power to disseminate untruths recklessly.
"In conclusion, the defendant (Musa) failed to establish a defence of fair comment or qualified privilege, and the defendant's reliance on bad faith is rejected. The defamatory imputations were serious, public, and highly damaging, and the defendant's actions demonstrated negligence and disregard for the plaintiff's rights.
"Taking into account all factors, we hereby award the plaintiff a global sum of RM250,000 in damages. Additionally, we award RM60,000 in costs in favour of the plaintiff," ruled the judge.
Speaking to the media after the proceedings, Hannah said she was grateful and happy with the court's decision today because, for the past six years, she had to live with various lies and slander circulating on social media, which not only tarnished her good name but also confused the public, because the accusations were made by the former Inspector-General of Police.
"Now, my focus is to continue to serve the people with full integrity, responsibility and sincerity," she said. - BERNAMA