<![CDATA[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui proses penerapan hukum pidana materiil dalam tindak pidana narkotika, mengetahui pertimbangan hakim tentang hal – hal yang memberikan penjatuhan Putusan Bebas Pasal 191 KUHP Ayat (1) terhadap terdakwa tindak pidana narkotika, menganalis dan mengamati fakta – fakta pada persidangan. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di Kantor Pengadilan Negeri di Kota Makassar. Hasil Putusan 1434/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Mks. Jaksa Penuntut umum menggunakan dakwaan alternative Pasal 114 ayat (2) Jo Pasal 132 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika atau pasal 112 ayat (2) Jo Pasal 132 ayat (1), dimana unsur dan pasal saling berkesesuaian, namun berdasarkan fakta persidangan dan pengakuan saksi-saksi khususnya saksi a de charger dimana pasal yang didakwakan memuat unsur subjektif yaitu setiap orang, namun fakta antara apa yang didakwakan unsur setiap orang (terdakwa) tidak memiliki hubungan dari pengembangan atas kasus narkotika, sehingga atas keterangan tersebut majelis berkesimpulan bahwa unsur setiap orang pada pasal ini tidak terbukti, oleh sebab itu sudah sepatutnya terdakwa dibebaskan dari dakwaan, mengingat ketentuan pasal 191 KUHP ayat (1) dan ketentuan Hukum lainnya yang saling berkaitan. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pelaksanaan Proses persidangan berjalan tanpa mengesampingkan penyelenggaraan kekuasaan kehakiman pada kasus tindak pidana narkotika. This study aims to determine the process of applying the material criminal law in narcotics crime, to know the judge's considerations on matters that provide the ruling on Article 191 of the Criminal Code Free Verdict Paragraph (1) against narcotics criminal defendants, to analyze and observe facts at the trial. This research was conducted in the District Court Office in Makassar City. From this study, the authors get the verdict of 1434 / Pid.Sus / 2018 / PN Mks. The Public Prosecutor uses the alternative indictment of Article 114 paragraph (2) Jo Article 132 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 Year 2009 concerning Narcotics or Article 112 paragraph (2) Jo Article 132 paragraph (1), where the elements and articles are compatible, but based on the facts of the trial and the testimony of witnesses especially witness a de charger where the article charged contains a subjective element that is each person, but the fact between what is charged by the element of each person (the defendant) has no relationship with the development of narcotics cases, so based on the information the panel of judges concluded that the element of each person in this article was not proven, therefore the defendant should have been acquitted of the indictment, bearing in mind the provisions of article 191 of the Criminal Code paragraph (1) and other interrelated legal provisions. The results of this study indicate that the implementation of the Trial Process proceeded without prejudice to the implementation of judicial authority in narcotics crime cases.]]>
