[ ] HEAH TONG GUAN

[ ] HEAH TONG GUAN

Although prosecution established the seized substance was a dangerous drug, conflicts in witness testimony about where and how the bag was found, inconsistencies and timing in police handling (raising possible mixing of exhibits) and the existence of an alternative inference (possession by a third-party Myanmar man) rebutted the s.37(d) presumption on balance of probabilities and created reasonable doubt under s.182A CPC; therefore prosecution failed to prove trafficking beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.

Citation
PA-45A-57-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused/defendant: Heah Tong Guan (No. K/P: 590529-07-5743)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 August 2023
Case Number
PA-45A-57-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Trial Concluded; Judgment at End of Defence (acquittal)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Trafficking Under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Presumption of Knowledge and Possession S.37(d), Sampling and Analysis S.37(j), Chain of Custody, Prima Facie Test at End of Prosecution, Burden of Proof at End of Defence S.182 a CPC, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug/narcotics Law Evidence Trafficking Under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Presumption of Knowledge and Possession S.37(d) Sampling and Analysis S.37(j) Chain of Custody Prima Facie Test at End of Prosecution +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Heah Tong Guan (No. K/P: 590529-07-5743)

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Trial Concluded; Judgment at End of Defence (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized substance was a dangerous drug as defined in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  2. 2 Whether the accused had possession and knowledge of the drugs (s.37(d))
  3. 3 Whether the accused committed trafficking as defined in s.2 and charged under s.39B(1)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Although prosecution established the seized substance was a dangerous drug, conflicts in witness testimony about where and how the bag was found, inconsistencies and timing in police handling (raising possible mixing of exhibits) and the existence of an alternative inference (possession by a third-party Myanmar man) rebutted the s.37(d) presumption on balance of probabilities and created reasonable doubt under s.182A CPC; therefore prosecution failed to prove trafficking beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged of the charge
  • Exhibits to be handed to the prosecution for disposal after expiry of the appeal period