VIJI KUMAR A/L RAJOW

VIJI KUMAR A/L RAJOW

The Court found sufficient direct evidence of possession and knowledge because officers observed the appellants handling and placing small drug packets into a larger bag at the time of the raid; however the trial court erred by effectively applying a 'presumption upon a presumption' when treating deemed possession under s.37(d) as sufficient to invoke the s.37(da) trafficking presumption without a separate affirmative finding of found possession. Consequently convictions for trafficking under s.39B(1)(a) were unsafe and were quashed; convictions substituted to possession under s.12(2) DDA with sentences adjusted accordingly.

Citation
K-05(H)-207-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Abdul bin Mohd Desa; Appellant: Viji Kumar a/l Rajow; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
H
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 December 2025
Case Number
K-05(H)-207-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: convictions for trafficking under s.39B(1)(a) DDA quashed and substituted with convictions for possession under s.12(2) DDA; original sentences set aside and new sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
Possession Vs Trafficking, Statutory Presumptions (s.37(d) and S.37(da) Dda), Burden of Proof to Rebut Presumptions, Common Intention, Sentence Substitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics/drug Offences Evidence Law Appeal Procedure Possession Vs Trafficking Statutory Presumptions (s.37(d) and S.37(da) Dda) Burden of Proof to Rebut Presumptions Common Intention +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul bin Mohd Desa

Appellant

Viji Kumar a/l Rajow

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants committed trafficking or mere possession
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumptions under s.37(d) and s.37(da) DDA were properly applied
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt or whether defence rebutted presumption on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found sufficient direct evidence of possession and knowledge because officers observed the appellants handling and placing small drug packets into a larger bag at the time of the raid; however the trial court erred by effectively applying a 'presumption upon a presumption' when treating deemed possession under s.37(d) as sufficient to invoke the s.37(da) trafficking presumption without a separate affirmative finding of found possession. Consequently convictions for trafficking under s.39B(1)(a) were unsafe and were quashed; convictions substituted to possession under s.12(2) DDA with sentences adjusted accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: convictions for trafficking under s.39B(1)(a) DDA quashed and substituted with convictions for possession under s.12(2) DDA; original sentences set aside and new sentences imposed.

Orders

  • Quash convictions and sentences under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Substitute convictions under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 39A(2) and section 34 of the Penal Code