ABISHEK RAJ A/L RAJESH KANNAN

ABISHEK RAJ A/L RAJESH KANNAN

The prosecution failed to prove custody, control and knowledge by the accused to the requisite prima facie standard: material contradictions in police evidence (notably regarding the accused's identity card and inventory procedures), failure to call material co-occupant witnesses and the accused's recorded denials undermined the prosecution case; consequently the statutory presumption under s37 ADB 1952 did not apply and no prima facie case was made out, entitling the accused to benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

Citation
BA-45A-150-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Abishek Raj a/l Rajesh Kannan (NRIC:011209-07-0485)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 November 2024
Case Number
BA-45A-150-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Close of Prosecution Case (s.180 Criminal Procedure Code)
Outcome
Acquitted
Legal Topics
Possession, Knowledge, Custody and Control, Prima Facie Case, Presumption of Trafficking (s37 ADB 1952), Hostile Witness, Search and Seizure, Credibility of Police Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedure Possession Knowledge Custody and Control Prima Facie Case +4 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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Abishek Raj a/l Rajesh Kannan (NRIC:011209-07-0485)

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Close of Prosecution Case (s.180 Criminal Procedure Code)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved custody, control and possession of the drugs by the accused
  2. 2 Whether the accused had knowledge of the presence of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether a prima facie case was made out under s.180 CPC to call the accused to answer

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove custody, control and knowledge by the accused to the requisite prima facie standard: material contradictions in police evidence (notably regarding the accused's identity card and inventory procedures), failure to call material co-occupant witnesses and the accused's recorded denials undermined the prosecution case; consequently the statutory presumption under s37 ADB 1952 did not apply and no prima facie case was made out, entitling the accused to benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

Court Disposition

Acquitted

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged