Public Prosecutor v Naufal Muzzammil s/o Jamal Mohamed [2026] SGDC 220
Outcome
Convicted“I convicted the accused of the trafficking charge accordingly.”
Source: [2026] SGDC 220, District Court, decided 6 July 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 6–12 July 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Cheng Yuxi |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Convicted |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Tan Lee & Partners, Chan Yi Cheng, Choo Si Sen, Choo Yean Lin |
Source: [2026] SGDC 220, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v Naufal Muzzammil s/o Jamal Mohamed [2026] SGDC 220 was decided by District Judge Cheng Yuxi in the District Court on 6 July 2026. The accused was charged under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act with trafficking in not less than 5.29g of cannabis mixture by selling a packet to one K Vasudeva for S$120 on 2 November 2022. He argued that he was merely sharing or returning the drugs and made no profit. The court held that selling is made out whether or not there is profit, rejected his defences and convicted him. He then pleaded guilty to consumption of a specified drug. The court imposed five years' and three months' imprisonment and five strokes of the cane for trafficking and one year's imprisonment for consumption, with the sentences running concurrently.
[2026] SGDC 220 explained
Public Prosecutor v Naufal Muzzammil s/o Jamal Mohamed [2026] SGDC 220 ([2026] SGDC 220) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 6 July 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGDC 220 about?
Public Prosecutor v Naufal Muzzammil s/o Jamal Mohamed [2026] SGDC 220 ([2026] SGDC 220) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law – Statutory offences – Misuse of Drugs Act – Trafficking in a controlled drug – Whether sale of drugs disclosed on the facts” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing – Misuse of Drugs Act – Trafficking in a controlled drug – Consumption of a specified drug”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGDC 220 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The District Court convicted Naufal Muzzammil s/o Jamal Mohamed after trial of trafficking in not less than 5.29g of cannabis mixture by selling it to one K Vasudeva for S$120, rejecting his defences that he was merely "sharing" or "returning" the drugs. He pleaded guilty to consumption of a specified drug. The court imposed five years' and three months' imprisonment and five strokes of the cane for trafficking and one year's imprisonment for consumption, to run concurrently.
What sentence did the court impose in [2026] SGDC 220?
For trafficking in cannabis mixture, five years' and three months' imprisonment and five strokes of the cane. For consumption of a specified drug, one year's imprisonment. The sentences ran concurrently, giving a global sentence of five years' and three months' imprisonment and five strokes.
Why was the accused's sharing defence rejected in Public Prosecutor v Naufal Muzzammil s/o Jamal Mohamed ([2026] SGDC 220)?
The court found he handed over drugs to Vasudeva in exchange for S$120, which is a sale whether or not profit is made. His statements, repacking of drugs and weighing scale were inconsistent with merely sharing or returning drugs.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (8)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 220)