Muhammad Nur Arif Nur Akil was initially sentenced to 30 years in prison and 12 strokes of the cane for trafficking 1,900.9g of cannabis in 2020. — Pexels pic (New users only) It's tax relief season! Get up to RM300 when you save with Versa! Plus, enjoy an additional FREE RM10 when you sign up using code VERSAMM10 with a min. cash-in of RM100 today. T&Cs apply. Wednesday, 20 May 2026 6:03 PM MYT PUTRAJAYA, May 20 — The Federal Court today reduced the prison sentence of a former private university student from 30 years to 12 years and 10 strokes of the cane after he was found in possession of 1,900.9 grammes of cannabis six years ago.A three-judge panel chaired by Justice Rhodzariah Bujang unanimously allowed the final appeal by Muhammad Nur Arif Nur Akil, 28, to set aside the Court of Appeal’s conviction and sentence delivered on May 26, 2025, and substitute it with a conviction for possession.“The court found that the appeal had merit and that there could be no presumed knowledge and actual knowledge,” she said, sitting together with Justices Lee Swee Seng and Ravinthran Paramaguru.The court also ordered that Muhammad Nur Arif serve the 12-year prison sentence from his date of arrest on September 2, 2020.On March 28, 2024, the Seremban High Court convicted him of drug trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced him to 30 years’ jail and 12 strokes of the cane.However, the Court of Appeal on May 26, 2025, upheld the High Court’s decision after dismissing his appeal.Muhammad Nur Arif had been charged with trafficking 1,900.9 grammes of cannabis at a supermarket car park in Seremban at 5.30 pm on September 2, 2020, under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, punishable under Section 39B(2) of the same Act.Defence counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik argued that the trial judge had erred in law by relying on both actual and presumed knowledge in securing the conviction, which he said was incorrect.Deputy public prosecutor Allan Suman Pillai countered that the attempt to reduce the charge to possession was inconsistent with the proven facts and the court’s findings, stressing the seriousness of the offence and public interest considerations. — Bernama