RAGUNATHAN A/L THANGIAH

RAGUNATHAN A/L THANGIAH

The Court held the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had knowledge, control and possession of the drugs by direct and circumstantial evidence (keys and access, appellant led police to unit, absence of others in unit, chemical analysis), the chain of custody and identity of exhibits were preserved, there was no withholding of material evidence to engage s114(g), and the trial judge's credibility findings were not vitiated; accordingly convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Citation
J-05(SH)-451-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Perayu / Appellant: Ragunathan a/l Thangiah; Respondent / Public Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Co Accused: Balachandran a/l Maniyam
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 July 2025
Case Number
J-05(SH)-451-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession (actual and Constructive), Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act, Chain of Custody, Adverse Inference S114(g) Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Appellate Procedure Trafficking Possession (actual and Constructive) Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act Chain of Custody +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ragunathan a/l Thangiah

Perayu / Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent / Public Prosecutor

Balachandran a/l Maniyam

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Heard and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved prima facie case of possession and trafficking
  2. 2 Whether chain of custody for exhibits was broken
  3. 3 Whether s114(g) Evidence Act adverse inference should be drawn for failure to call detained suspects

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had knowledge, control and possession of the drugs by direct and circumstantial evidence (keys and access, appellant led police to unit, absence of others in unit, chemical analysis), the chain of custody and identity of exhibits were preserved, there was no withholding of material evidence to engage s114(g), and the trial judge's credibility findings were not vitiated; accordingly convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and convictions in all three appeals upheld
  • Sentences affirmed: counts under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — life imprisonment from 30.05.2021 and 12 strokes each (to run concurrently as ordered below)