[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] KALAISELVAM MUTHALIAR A/L ANBAKARASAN

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] KALAISELVAM MUTHALIAR A/L ANBAKARASAN

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because its narrative was inconsistent and contradicted on material particulars, the principal witness (SP1) was unreliable, material evidence (the accused's mobile phone, vehicle and witnesses Ruben and Mior) was suppressed or not investigated, and the investigating officer was left unable to verify exculpatory leads; these failures raised reasonable doubt as to the accused's knowledge and intention to traffic, requiring acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case and precluding invocation of the presumption under s37(da) DDA.

Citation
WA-45A-18-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Kalaiselvam Muthaliar a/l Anbakarasan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Case Number
WA-45A-18-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (drug Trafficking) / Acquittal at Close of Prosecution's Case
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Adverse Inference, Reasonable Doubt, Investigation Failures, Witness Credibility, Seizure and Production of Evidence, Presumption of Trafficking
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Drugs Law Procedural Law Drug Trafficking Adverse Inference Reasonable Doubt Investigation Failures +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Kalaiselvam Muthaliar a/l Anbakarasan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (drug Trafficking) / Acquittal at Close of Prosecution's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution adduced credible evidence to establish a prima facie case for trafficking under section 39B DDA
  2. 2 Credibility and reliability of the raiding officer (SP1)
  3. 3 Suppression/non-production of material evidence (accused's mobile phone, white car, witnesses Ruben and Mior) and application of s114(g) Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because its narrative was inconsistent and contradicted on material particulars, the principal witness (SP1) was unreliable, material evidence (the accused's mobile phone, vehicle and witnesses Ruben and Mior) was suppressed or not investigated, and the investigating officer was left unable to verify exculpatory leads; these failures raised reasonable doubt as to the accused's knowledge and intention to traffic, requiring acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case and precluding invocation of the presumption under s37(da) DDA.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged.