1. ) ALVIN RAJ A/L ANDREW ROY 2. ) MITHRA A/P R.SELVAKUMAR

1. ) ALVIN RAJ A/L ANDREW ROY 2. ) MITHRA A/P R.SELVAKUMAR

The prosecution failed to prove beyond prima facie that either defendant had control, custody and knowledge of the methamphetamine or that they shared a common intention to traffic it; close proximity was insufficient, investigation was inadequate and material witnesses (the renter Xeno Cravier and arresting officers) were not called such that s114(g) was engaged; therefore no prima facie case and defendants acquitted.

Citation
BA-45A-19-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; First Defendant: Alvin Raj A/L Andrew Roy; Second Defendant: Mithra A/P R. Selvakumar
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 October 2025
Case Number
BA-45A-19-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Judgment After Prosecution Case (acquittal at End of Prosecution Case)
Outcome
Both accused acquitted and discharged; no call to defence
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution, Knowledge and Control, Wilful Blindness, Common Intention (s34), Investigation Obligations, Failure to Call Material Witnesses (s114(g))
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession Distribution Knowledge and Control Wilful Blindness +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Alvin Raj A/L Andrew Roy

First Defendant

Mithra A/P R. Selvakumar

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Judgment After Prosecution Case (acquittal at End of Prosecution Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession (control, custody and ownership) of the drugs by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether defendants had knowledge of the drugs found in the vehicle
  3. 3 Whether physical proximity to the seized drugs is sufficient to infer possession

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove beyond prima facie that either defendant had control, custody and knowledge of the methamphetamine or that they shared a common intention to traffic it; close proximity was insufficient, investigation was inadequate and material witnesses (the renter Xeno Cravier and arresting officers) were not called such that s114(g) was engaged; therefore no prima facie case and defendants acquitted.

Court Disposition

Both accused acquitted and discharged; no call to defence

Orders

  • Both defendants are acquitted and discharged of the charge under s39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 read with s34 Kanun Keseksaan
  • Case dismissed at the close of the prosecution case; defendants released