[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) RUBAN A/L MOHAN 2. ) LAVANEIA A/P GUNASEKARAN

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) RUBAN A/L MOHAN 2. ) LAVANEIA A/P GUNASEKARAN

The court accepted the defence account and the sworn testimony of SD3 (Dinesh) as credible and probative, found that defence raised a reasonable doubt sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking and that investigative deficiencies and uncalled prosecution witnesses further undermined the prosecution case; accordingly the accuseds must be acquitted and discharged.

Citation
WA-45-19-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu: Pendakwa Raya; Responden: Ruban a/l Mohan; Responden: Lavaneia a/p Gunasekaran
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Case Number
WA-45-19-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Both respondents acquitted and discharged; prosecution's case not proved beyond reasonable doubt and statutory presumption rebutted
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Statutory Presumption Under S37(da), Burden of Proof and Prima Facie, Credibility of Defence Witnesses, Investigative Deficiencies, Willful Blindness, Radhi’s Direction
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Possession Trafficking Statutory Presumption Under S37(da) Burden of Proof and Prima Facie Credibility of Defence Witnesses +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Perayu

Ruban a/l Mohan

Responden

Lavaneia a/p Gunasekaran

Responden

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession, control and knowledge of the drugs by the accuseds
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumption under Section 37(da) arose and was rebutted
  3. 3 Whether defence raised reasonable doubt to negate mens rea for trafficking/possession

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the defence account and the sworn testimony of SD3 (Dinesh) as credible and probative, found that defence raised a reasonable doubt sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking and that investigative deficiencies and uncalled prosecution witnesses further undermined the prosecution case; accordingly the accuseds must be acquitted and discharged.

Court Disposition

Both respondents acquitted and discharged; prosecution's case not proved beyond reasonable doubt and statutory presumption rebutted

Orders

  • Both respondents (Ruban a/l Mohan and Lavaneia a/p Gunasekaran) are acquitted and discharged