AHMAD FARIZUL ISMAIL v. PP
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH JCA
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: S-05(SH)-298-08-2023]
26 FEBRUARY 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (4)
Abstract – Under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, a criminal attempt is established when an accused performs acts demonstrating a substantial step towards the commission of the offence. Physical possession of the contraband is not a prerequisite for a conviction of attempted trafficking. Once an accused has taken all necessary administrative or physical steps to procure a specific item, the transition from preparation to execution is complete, regardless of whether they successfully take the item into their hands.
CRIMINAL LAW: Offence – Trafficking – Attempted trafficking of dangerous drugs – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a) – Accused attempted to collect parcel containing dangerous drugs at courier hub – Accused found guilty, convicted as per charge and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping – Whether there was substantial movement towards commission of offence – Whether actual physical possession prerequisite for conviction – Whether acts of 'receiving', 'procuring' or 'transporting' under s. 2 of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 established
EVIDENCE: Conduct – Inference of knowledge – Accused attempted to collect parcel containing dangerous drugs at courier hub – Accused abruptly left courier hub and fled upon noticing arrival of enforcement officers – Whether relevant under s. 8 of Evidence Act 1950 – Whether conduct supported inference of knowledge of incriminating nature of parcel's contents – Whether tipped off by phone call
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Investigation – Deficient investigation – Act of attempting to collect parcel containing dangerous drugs at courier hub – Accused found guilty, convicted as per charge and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping – Allegation that accused was collecting parcel on behalf of third party – Whether duty on prosecution to locate individual where accused provided insufficient or scant particulars – Whether investigation adequate
