Ahrjun A/l Chandran [ ]

Ahrjun A/l Chandran [ ]

Conviction for trafficking under s39B(1)(a) was unsafe because the trial judge failed to state whether he relied on direct evidence or statutory presumptions (s37(d)/s37(da)); however, on the evidence the appellant did have possession of the drugs and the trafficking conviction is substituted with a conviction for possession (s6) and sentenced to 13 years and 10 strokes. Other convictions under s12(2) were upheld but one sentence reduced to 3 years where the original sentence exceeded statutory maximum.

Citation
B-05(M)-183-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Ahrjun a/l Chandran; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 July 2022
Case Number
B-05(M)-183-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Appeal From High Court Shah Alam; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; trafficking conviction set aside and substituted with possession; other convictions upheld with sentence adjustment
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Admissibility of Conduct, Statutory Presumptions (s37(d), S37(da)), S37 B DDA Caution, S114(g) Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Admissibility of Conduct Statutory Presumptions (s37(d), S37(da)) S37 B DDA Caution +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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahrjun a/l Chandran

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Appeal From High Court Shah Alam; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved appellant's possession/ownership of drugs found in rented room
  2. 2 Whether appellant's conduct (pointing out hidden drugs and pulling drawer) is a 'statement' requiring s37B caution or admissible conduct under s8 Evidence Act
  3. 3 Whether failure to call Ravi and Machai permits adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction for trafficking under s39B(1)(a) was unsafe because the trial judge failed to state whether he relied on direct evidence or statutory presumptions (s37(d)/s37(da)); however, on the evidence the appellant did have possession of the drugs and the trafficking conviction is substituted with a conviction for possession (s6) and sentenced to 13 years and 10 strokes. Other convictions under s12(2) were upheld but one sentence reduced to 3 years where the original sentence exceeded statutory maximum.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; trafficking conviction set aside and substituted with possession; other convictions upheld with sentence adjustment

Orders

  • Conviction under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 set aside and substituted with conviction for possession under s6 DDA; sentence imposed: 13 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan from date of arrest
  • Conviction and sentence for Additional Charge 1 under s12(2) DDA (punished under s39A(2)) upheld