The Federal Court of Appeal in Abu Dhabi upheld the acquittal of a defendant on charges of possessing narcotic and psychotropic substances with intent to traffic. The defendant had been arrested by police while collecting a packet of hashish from a monitored location in Sharjah. The court ruled that mere possession of the drugs was insufficient to prove intent to traffic, as there was no conclusive evidence of sale or distribution. It also upheld his three-month prison sentence for using a psychotropic substance and rejected the Public Prosecution's appeal seeking his conviction on both charges.
The incident dates back to January 2024, when the Sharjah Anti-Narcotics Department received information about a person using and selling drugs for money. After verifying the information and obtaining a warrant from the Public Prosecution, officers arrested him near a shop while carrying a bag containing a yellow roll of a substance suspected to be hashish, weighing 1,085 grams.
The first defendant led authorities to his residence, where officers seized a crystalline substance suspected to be crystal meth, along with three electronic scales and tools bearing traces of dark substances. Other items suspected of being used to prepare and consume drugs were also recovered.
While at the Drug Enforcement Administration, he received a call from a person in Pakistan identified in the case papers as “Shaheen”. The caller allegedly asked him to place drugs at a specific location, photograph them and send the image via WhatsApp so that someone inside the country could collect them.
Officers placed a package containing 559.60 grams of hashish, taken from the seized drugs, at the specified location in the Al Nahda area and kept it under surveillance. In the early hours of the morning, they observed the second suspect leave his vehicle and collect the package. He was arrested and the drugs were seized from him. A hookah, suspected of being used for consuming drugs, was also found in his vehicle.
Forensic laboratory reports showed that the items seized from the first defendant included 1,091.1 grams of narcotic substances related to Indian hemp and 2.9 grams of methamphetamine. Tests on the defendants' urine samples also confirmed use of the same substance.
The Public Prosecution referred both men to trial on charges of possessing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances with intent to traffic, as well as using psychotropic substances.
The court of first instance sentenced the first defendant, in absentia, to life imprisonment for possession with intent to traffic and three months' imprisonment for drug use. The second defendant was sentenced in person to three months' imprisonment for drug use and was acquitted of the charge of possession with intent to traffic.
The prosecution appealed the acquittal of the second defendant, relying on the testimony of the arresting officer, the forensic laboratory report and the arrest report. During the appeal hearing, the defendant appeared via video conference with his lawyer, admitted to drug use and denied the remaining charges.
The court stated that determining intent to traffic falls within the discretion of the trial court, based on the circumstances, evidence and indications presented in each case. It noted that a court may acquit if it has doubts about the charge or considers the evidence insufficient. It added that the original ruling found the second defendant lacked intent to traffic, as there was no evidence that he had sold or promoted drugs, and because the investigation had focused solely on the first defendant.
The court pointed out that the second defendant was arrested immediately after collecting the package. Tests confirmed he had used methamphetamine, and a hookah was found in his vehicle, indicating drug use. These factors formed the basis of the original ruling that his presence at the location was for the purpose of purchasing drugs for personal use.
Regarding the arresting officer's testimony that the defendant had admitted he intended to divide the substance for resale, the court held that this statement alone was insufficient to prove intent to traffic. It noted that such a charge requires strict proof because of the severity of the penalties, which may include life imprisonment or the death penalty.
The court stressed that the case file contained no conclusive evidence proving that the defendant had trafficked narcotic or psychotropic substances. It also noted that he had denied both charges throughout the investigation and trial. The court found the reasoning of the original judgment sufficient and ruled to accept the appeal in form but reject it on its merits, thereby upholding the original ruling and ordering the respondent to pay the appeal fees.
