1. ) TIE SING HENG 2. ) DONNY TEO KEE CHUAN

1. ) TIE SING HENG 2. ) DONNY TEO KEE CHUAN

On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence the court found the seized items were dangerous drugs, the defendants had custody/control and knowledge of the drugs (established by CCTV, access card records, keys, contacts and their presence), the packaging and quantity permitted an inference of intent to distribute, and there was sufficient evidence of common intention under section 34; prosecution proved a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise reasonable doubt — accordingly both defendants convicted under s39B ADB 1952 (read with s34 Penal Code) and sentenced to imprisonment (30 years) and 12 strokes each.

Citation
BA-45A-62-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant (okt1): Tie Seng Heng; Defendant (okt2): Donny Teo Kee Chuan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
BA-45A-62-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Conviction and Sentencing; Appeal Filed
Outcome
Both defendants convicted
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking/distribution, Knowledge, Joint Liability (section 34), Burden of Proof / Prima Facie, Forensic Analysis and Chain of Custody
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Trafficking/distribution Knowledge Joint Liability (section 34) Burden of Proof / Prima Facie +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Tie Seng Heng

Defendant (okt1)

Donny Teo Kee Chuan

Defendant (okt2)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Conviction and Sentencing; Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized substance is a dangerous drug
  2. 2 Whether defendants had custody/control and knowledge of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether the quantity and packaging infer distribution/trafficking

Ratio Decidendi

On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence the court found the seized items were dangerous drugs, the defendants had custody/control and knowledge of the drugs (established by CCTV, access card records, keys, contacts and their presence), the packaging and quantity permitted an inference of intent to distribute, and there was sufficient evidence of common intention under section 34; prosecution proved a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise reasonable doubt — accordingly both defendants convicted under s39B ADB 1952 (read with s34 Penal Code) and sentenced to imprisonment (30 years) and 12 strokes each.

Court Disposition

Both defendants convicted

Orders

  • Defendants convicted under section 39B(1)(a) read with section 39B(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and section 34 Penal Code
  • Sentence: imprisonment for 30 years (treated as life term per exercise of judicial discretion post abolition of mandatory death penalty) starting from date of arrest