<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the criminal offense of possessing non-plant-based Class I narcotics and the judges' legal reasoning in Bandung District Court Decision Number 504/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bdg. The research employs a normative legal method utilizing statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. The analysis focuses on the application of Article 112 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, the substantiation of the offense's elements, and the judges' reasoning in selecting the charge from the alternatives of Article 112 paragraph (1) and Article 114 paragraph (1). The analysis reveals that the defendant was proven to meet the elements of "any person," "without right or unlawfully," and "possessing non-plant-based Class I narcotics." Possession was established by the fact that the defendant retrieved and carried two packages of crystal methamphetamine with a net weight of 4.0534 grams, which laboratory testing confirmed to contain methamphetamine. Although the possession was carried out under the instruction of another party and was temporary in nature, these circumstances did not negate the defendant's factual control over the narcotics. The Panel of Judges selected Article 112 paragraph (1) because there was insufficient evidence regarding a transaction, sale, handover, or intermediation in the narcotics trade. The evidentiary process also satisfied the standards set forth in Articles 183 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Thus, the application of Article 112 paragraph (1) is fundamentally consistent with the principles of legality and criminal liability, although the distinction between possession and trafficking requires further elaboration.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
