SAWINDRAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM

SAWINDRAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM

Appeal dismissed: single urine specimen bottle did not invalidate prosecution evidence; proviso to s399(1) CPC did not require delivery of the pathology report where accused pleaded guilty; absence in the pathology report of an express statement that morphine is in the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was not fatal because the report identified the sample and the detected drug and the prosecution established the statutory classification via facts admitted (P1) and applicable law.

Citation
BA-42S-8-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Sawindran a/l Subramaniam; Respondent/public Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 November 2023
Case Number
BA-42S-8-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Possession/use of Controlled Drugs, Forensic Urine Specimen Procedure, Disclosure of Expert Reports Under S399(1) CPC, Effect of Guilty Plea, Sentence Enhancement Under S39 C ADB 1952
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Procedure Possession/use of Controlled Drugs Forensic Urine Specimen Procedure Disclosure of Expert Reports Under S399(1) CPC Effect of Guilty Plea +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sawindran a/l Subramaniam

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/public Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether collection of a single urine specimen bottle rendered prosecution evidence inadmissible or fatal to the case
  2. 2 Whether proviso to s399(1) Criminal Procedure Code required delivery of pathology report to accused 10 days before trial where accused pleaded guilty
  3. 3 Whether pathology report (P10) was defective for not stating that morphine is listed in the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed: single urine specimen bottle did not invalidate prosecution evidence; proviso to s399(1) CPC did not require delivery of the pathology report where accused pleaded guilty; absence in the pathology report of an express statement that morphine is in the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was not fatal because the report identified the sample and the detected drug and the prosecution established the statutory classification via facts admitted (P1) and applicable law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of 5 years imprisonment from 2 May 2023 upheld
  • One stroke of the cane ordered upheld