[TIMBALAN ] 1. ) VILVA NATHAN A/L SURIANMURTY 2. ) CHAKRA WARTHI A/L PANNIR SELVAN 3. ) PUTERI MURNI

[TIMBALAN ] 1. ) VILVA NATHAN A/L SURIANMURTY 2. ) CHAKRA WARTHI A/L PANNIR SELVAN 3. ) PUTERI MURNI

The prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge by the accused because the drugs were found in premises without evidence establishing exclusive control or occupancy by any accused, OKT1 was arrested elsewhere without control over the drugs, and there was no evidence of joint intention; therefore statutory presumptions of distribution could not be invoked and there was no prima facie case to call the accused to defend.

Citation
PB-45A-48-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: Vilva Nathan a/l Surianmurty; Accused: Chakra Warthi a/l Pannir Selvan; Accused: Puteri Murni
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 June 2025
Case Number
PB-45A-48-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / End of Prosecution Case — No Prima Facie Found (discharge Without Calling Defence)
Outcome
Accused discharged and released; no case to answer (dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri)
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution/dealing, Joint Intention (section 34), Prima Facie Burden, Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act, Chain of Custody
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Search and Seizure Possession Distribution/dealing Joint Intention (section 34) Prima Facie Burden +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

Vilva Nathan a/l Surianmurty

Accused

Chakra Warthi a/l Pannir Selvan

Accused

Puteri Murni

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / End of Prosecution Case — No Prima Facie Found (discharge Without Calling Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity of the seized substance as a dangerous drug
  2. 2 Whether the accused had possession and knowledge of the drug
  3. 3 Whether distribution/presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(xvi) ADB 1952 applies

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge by the accused because the drugs were found in premises without evidence establishing exclusive control or occupancy by any accused, OKT1 was arrested elsewhere without control over the drugs, and there was no evidence of joint intention; therefore statutory presumptions of distribution could not be invoked and there was no prima facie case to call the accused to defend.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and released; no case to answer (dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri)

Orders

  • Vilva Nathan a/l Surianmurty, Chakra Warthi a/l Pannir Selvan and Puteri Murni are discharged and acquitted and released without being called to enter their defence.