UMA SELVAM A/L SUBRAMANIAM

UMA SELVAM A/L SUBRAMANIAM

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: evidence did not prove the accused had possession, custody, control or knowledge of the drugs at either location; section 27 did not operate because police already had the address from the receipt; in absence of proven possession the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) does not arise; accused acquitted.

Citation
AA-45A-7-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Uma Selvam a/l Subramaniam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 April 2026
Case Number
AA-45A-7-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Post Close of Prosecution Case; Determination of Prima Facie Under S180 CPC
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged of all charges; not called to enter defence.
Legal Topics
Possession, Knowledge, Trafficking, Section 27 Evidence Act (discovery Exception), Statutory Presumption of Trafficking (s37(da))
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Possession Knowledge Trafficking Section 27 Evidence Act (discovery Exception) Statutory Presumption of Trafficking (s37(da))

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Uma Selvam a/l Subramaniam

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Post Close of Prosecution Case; Determination of Prima Facie Under S180 CPC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had possession, custody and control of drugs recovered at Lot 367 and No.58 Jalan Wong Kwong Nam
  2. 2 Whether the accused had knowledge of the existence and nature of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) arises and whether the prosecution proved trafficking under s39B(1)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: evidence did not prove the accused had possession, custody, control or knowledge of the drugs at either location; section 27 did not operate because police already had the address from the receipt; in absence of proven possession the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) does not arise; accused acquitted.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged of all charges; not called to enter defence.

Orders

  • Accused is acquitted and discharged of all charges without being called to enter his defence.