Dubai A mechanic and a supervisor lost their appeals and will spend two years in jail each for possessing 0.27gm of methamphetamine that they had planned to promote to a police informant.

In December, the Dubai Court of First Instance convicted the 30-year-old Filipino mechanic and his 32-year-old countryman supervisor of possessing methamphetamine.

Drug enforcement officers had arrested one of them when he tried to sell the methamphetamine to an informant during a sting operation in Al Muraqqabat.

The duo appealed the primary ruling before the Appeal Court and sought to have their two-year imprisonment reduced.

Prosecutors also appealed the same punishment and asked the appellate court to stiffen their punishment.

On Wednesday, presiding judge Saeed Salem Bin Sarm rejected the defendant’s appeal and that of prosecutors and upheld the primary judgement.

The two Filipinos will be deported following the completion of their punishments, said the appellate ruling.

The defendants had pleaded not guilty and contended that they possessed the methamphetamine for their personal consumption and not to promote it.

“We possessed the banned substance but for our personal use,” the 30-year-old told the court.

The mechanic was cited as admitting to prosecutors that he was about to hand over the methamphetamine to the informant for Dh2,000 after he had obtained the drug from the supervisor for Dh1,500.

His 32-year-old countryman was quoted as admitting to prosecutors that he gave the drugs to the mechanic for Dh500 and the latter was supposed to sell it to an unidentified person for an unknown amount of money.

Meanwhile when they showed up in court, they contended that they possessed the banned substance for their personal usage.

An anti-narcotics policeman said they were alerted that the mechanic was planning to give a drug pouch to their informant.

“We raided the location and once the mechanic spotted us, he threw the pouch on the ground. The pouch contained methamphetamine … upon confronting the defendant, he claimed that he got rid of it because he did not want it to be seized from his possession. The other defendant was apprehended later,” he told prosecutors.

The appellate ruling remains subject to appeal before the Cassation Court within 30 days.