[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] RADHAKRISHNAN A/L RANGASAMY RASU

[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] RADHAKRISHNAN A/L RANGASAMY RASU

The prosecution proved that the seized liquids were prohibited goods (intoxicating liquor), that the accused was the registered owner and in possession of the goods displayed openly for sale, and that statutory presumptions under s.119 and s.135(2) applied and were not rebutted. The chemist's report, though not using the exact statutory phrase, was a rational opinion based on adequate data and therefore sufficient. The handwritten tenancy agreement was unreliable and parol evidence could not vary its written terms. Therefore the accused was guilty under s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967.

Citation
BH-83-1204-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Radhakrishnan A/L Rangasamy Rasu
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 March 2023
Case Number
BH-83-1204-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (customs) / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted under s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967
Legal Topics
Possession of Prohibited Goods, Burden of Proof and Statutory Presumptions, Admissibility of Chemist Report, Chain of Custody, Parol Evidence and Written Contracts, Sentencing and Stay of Execution
Source Language
Malay/English
Customs Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Procedure Possession of Prohibited Goods Burden of Proof and Statutory Presumptions Admissibility of Chemist Report Chain of Custody +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 8 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Radhakrishnan A/L Rangasamy Rasu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (customs) / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized alcoholic beverages were 'prohibited goods' under the Customs Act 1967
  2. 2 Whether the accused was in possession of the prohibited goods
  3. 3 Whether the accused had knowledge of the prohibited goods

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution proved that the seized liquids were prohibited goods (intoxicating liquor), that the accused was the registered owner and in possession of the goods displayed openly for sale, and that statutory presumptions under s.119 and s.135(2) applied and were not rebutted. The chemist's report, though not using the exact statutory phrase, was a rational opinion based on adequate data and therefore sufficient. The handwritten tenancy agreement was unreliable and parol evidence could not vary its written terms. Therefore the accused was guilty under s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted under s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967

Orders

  • Fine imposed RM110000 in default 12 months imprisonment
  • Pay Director General of Customs and Excise RM1145.24 (customs duty) pursuant to s.119A Customs Act 1967