[ ] 1. ) Visvamurthy A/l Apparasamy 2. ) M Thiyagu A/l Murty 3. ) Sathiaselan A/l Ayakanu 4. ) Siah Chin Aun

[ ] 1. ) Visvamurthy A/l Apparasamy 2. ) M Thiyagu A/l Murty 3. ) Sathiaselan A/l Ayakanu 4. ) Siah Chin Aun

The court held that possession (custody and control and knowledge) of 426,792.2 grams of methamphetamine by the four accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt by their exclusive presence in the enclosed lorry compartment next to open boxes containing the drug and lack of any credible innocent explanation; however trafficking under s39B(1)(a) DDA was not proven because of unresolved reasonable alternative inferences concerning third‑party access and absence of indicia of distribution, permitting substitution to conviction for the lesser offence of possession under s12(2) DDA punishable under s39A(2) DDA; each accused sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

Citation
AA-45A-11-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Visvamurthy a/l Apparasamy; Accused: M Thiyagu a/l Murty; Accused: Sathiaselan a/l Ayakanu; Accused: Siah Chin Aun
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 December 2025
Case Number
AA-45A-11-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Full Trial / Judgment (conviction and Sentencing)
Outcome
Charge of trafficking under s39B(1)(a) DDA not proven; convicted of lesser offence of possession under s12(2) DDA punishable under s39A(2) DDA
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Statutory Presumption, Burden of Proof, Lesser Offence Substitution, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Trafficking Possession Statutory Presumption Burden of Proof Lesser Offence Substitution +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Visvamurthy a/l Apparasamy

Accused

M Thiyagu a/l Murty

Accused

Sathiaselan a/l Ayakanu

Accused

Siah Chin Aun

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Full Trial / Judgment (conviction and Sentencing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved possession (custody, control and knowledge)
  2. 2 Whether knowledge of the drugs by the accused was proven
  3. 3 Whether trafficking was proven under s39B DDA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that possession (custody and control and knowledge) of 426,792.2 grams of methamphetamine by the four accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt by their exclusive presence in the enclosed lorry compartment next to open boxes containing the drug and lack of any credible innocent explanation; however trafficking under s39B(1)(a) DDA was not proven because of unresolved reasonable alternative inferences concerning third‑party access and absence of indicia of distribution, permitting substitution to conviction for the lesser offence of possession under s12(2) DDA punishable under s39A(2) DDA; each accused sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

Court Disposition

Charge of trafficking under s39B(1)(a) DDA not proven; convicted of lesser offence of possession under s12(2) DDA punishable under s39A(2) DDA

Orders

  • Convicted of possession contrary to section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under section 39A(2) DDA
  • Original charge under section 39B(1)(a) DDA read with section 34 Penal Code not proven and accordingly not convicted on that charge