PREMANAATHAN A/L SUNDRARAJU

PREMANAATHAN A/L SUNDRARAJU

The court accepted prosecution evidence including chemist analysis and witnesses that the drugs were found in the accused's hand and that the accused had custody/control and knowledge; SP3's recorded statement materially contradicted his in-court evidence and was used to impeach him; defence account of a third person was an afterthought and not credible; on the whole evidence the prosecution proved both elements beyond reasonable doubt so the accused was convicted on both counts and sentenced; a conditional stay pending appeal was granted.

Citation
WA-83D-9955-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: PREMANAATHAN A/L SUNDRARAJU
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 May 2024
Case Number
WA-83D-9955-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Possession / Conviction and Sentencing; Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Accused convicted on both counts under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; sentenced on first count to 2 years 6 months imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane; sentenced on second count to 8 months imprisonment; sentences to run concurrently; stay of execution of sentence granted pending appeal subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Possession, Mens Rea (knowledge), Chain of Custody, Impeachment of Witness (prior Inconsistent Statement), Stay of Execution Pending Appeal, Sentencing Principles
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Possession Mens Rea (knowledge) Chain of Custody Impeachment of Witness (prior Inconsistent Statement) +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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

PREMANAATHAN A/L SUNDRARAJU

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Possession / Conviction and Sentencing; Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved the drugs were dangerous drugs and their identity
  2. 2 Whether accused had possession (control/custody) and requisite knowledge (mens rea) of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether prosecution chain of custody was intact and exhibits admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted prosecution evidence including chemist analysis and witnesses that the drugs were found in the accused's hand and that the accused had custody/control and knowledge; SP3's recorded statement materially contradicted his in-court evidence and was used to impeach him; defence account of a third person was an afterthought and not credible; on the whole evidence the prosecution proved both elements beyond reasonable doubt so the accused was convicted on both counts and sentenced; a conditional stay pending appeal was granted.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on both counts under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; sentenced on first count to 2 years 6 months imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane; sentenced on second count to 8 months imprisonment; sentences to run concurrently; stay of execution of sentence granted pending appeal subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Accused convicted for possession of Heroin and Monoacetylmorphine and found guilty under s12(2) DDA 1952; sentenced under s39A(1) DDA 1952 (first count) and s12(3) DDA 1952 (second count)
  • First count sentence: 2 years 6 months imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane; second count sentence: 8 months imprisonment; both sentences to run concurrently from date of judgment