[ ] VIKNES WAREN A/L S.SELVAM RAJ

[ ] VIKNES WAREN A/L S.SELVAM RAJ

Prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge required for trafficking: it did not exclude the possibility of access by others given the tip-off origin, failed to call key witnesses (vehicle owner, investigating officer), delayed in tracing an important witness so ID30 was inadmissible, and investigative gaps (delay in lab submission, no forensic analysis of seized phones, lack of CCTV) undermined chain of custody and evidential nexus; consequently no prima facie case under s180 CPC and the accused was discharged at end of prosecution case.

Citation
BA-45A-32-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Viknes Waren a/l S. Selvam Raj
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 September 2022
Case Number
BA-45A-32-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (drug Trafficking) / End of Prosecution Case (prima Facie Assessment)
Outcome
Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case; accused discharged at end of prosecution case and not called to enter defence.
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Knowledge, Admissibility of Hearsay (s32 Evidence Act), Chain of Custody, Prima Facie Test, Forensic Evidence (digital/cellphones), CCTV Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Trafficking Possession Knowledge Admissibility of Hearsay (s32 Evidence Act) +4 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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Viknes Waren a/l S. Selvam Raj

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (drug Trafficking) / End of Prosecution Case (prima Facie Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized substance is methamphetamine and its quantity
  2. 2 Whether the accused had possession (control/custody) and knowledge of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) ADB applies

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge required for trafficking: it did not exclude the possibility of access by others given the tip-off origin, failed to call key witnesses (vehicle owner, investigating officer), delayed in tracing an important witness so ID30 was inadmissible, and investigative gaps (delay in lab submission, no forensic analysis of seized phones, lack of CCTV) undermined chain of custody and evidential nexus; consequently no prima facie case under s180 CPC and the accused was discharged at end of prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case; accused discharged at end of prosecution case and not called to enter defence.

Orders

  • ID30 (recording of Gunaalan a/l Subramaniam) rejected as evidence
  • Prosecution case dismissed at end of prosecution case; accused discharged and not required to make defence