[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] SUREN A/L RAMACHANDARAN

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] SUREN A/L RAMACHANDARAN

Court held the accused rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking as to intent to traffic but failed to raise a reasonable doubt on possession with knowledge; therefore trafficking charge under section 39B(1)(a) was reduced to possession under section 12(2) DDA and the accused was convicted of possession of 217.95g methamphetamine and of cannabis (95.92g and 0.22g), with concurrent custodial sentences and mandatory whipping as imposed.

Citation
WA-45A-28-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Suren a/l Ramachandran
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 January 2026
Case Number
WA-45A-28-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs (trafficking/possession) / Trial Concluded Conviction and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted of reduced offences of possession; sentenced to concurrent imprisonment and ordered to be whipped as mandatory
Legal Topics
Trafficking Presumption, Possession With Knowledge, Chain of Custody, Adverse Inference, Sentencing and Corporal Punishment
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Trafficking Presumption Possession With Knowledge Chain of Custody Adverse Inference Sentencing and Corporal Punishment

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Suren a/l Ramachandran

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs (trafficking/possession) / Trial Concluded Conviction and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) DDA was rebutted
  2. 2 Whether possession with knowledge (mens rea possession) was proven beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether charge of trafficking should be reduced to possession under section 12(2) DDA

Ratio Decidendi

Court held the accused rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking as to intent to traffic but failed to raise a reasonable doubt on possession with knowledge; therefore trafficking charge under section 39B(1)(a) was reduced to possession under section 12(2) DDA and the accused was convicted of possession of 217.95g methamphetamine and of cannabis (95.92g and 0.22g), with concurrent custodial sentences and mandatory whipping as imposed.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted of reduced offences of possession; sentenced to concurrent imprisonment and ordered to be whipped as mandatory

Orders

  • Charge P2 reduced to possession under section 12(2) DDA; convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of whipping
  • Charge P3 convicted: possession of 95.92g cannabis - 6 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of whipping