CHANDRU A/L MUNIANDY

CHANDRU A/L MUNIANDY

The Court upheld convictions on all four charges because the prosecution proved chain of custody, the chemist's report and credible eyewitness evidence that the accused occupied the premises and had the power to deal with the drugs; admissions notwithstanding, sufficient independent evidence established possession and knowledge; the wife's cautioned statement was admissible under section 32 because she could not be procured and the statement was relevant; subsection 2A of s39B is retrospective but requires satisfaction of limbs (a) and (d) and either (b) or (c); limb (d) (assistance to enforcement agency) was not satisfied so the court set aside the life sentence and substituted the...

Citation
A-05(SH)-326-06/2018 & A-05(H)-329-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Chandru a/l Muniandy; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor); Appellant: Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor); Respondent: Chandru a/l Muniandy
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Case Number
A-05(SH)-326-06/2018 & A-05(H)-329-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposal)
Outcome
Convictions affirmed on all four charges; appeal by prosecution allowed on sentence for first (trafficking) charge; life sentence set aside and substituted with death; sentences for three possession charges and other orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Presumption of Trafficking, Admissibility of Cautioned Statements, Section 32 Evidence Act 1950, Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Retrospective Application of Statutory Amendment, Requirement to Prove Knowledge, Exclusive Possession
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Sentencing Law Appeals Possession Trafficking Presumption of Trafficking +6 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandru a/l Muniandy

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Respondent

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Appellant

Chandru a/l Muniandy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was in actual possession of the seized drugs
  2. 2 Whether the accused had knowledge of the nature of the drugs
  3. 3 Admissibility of the accused's alleged admission without caution

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld convictions on all four charges because the prosecution proved chain of custody, the chemist's report and credible eyewitness evidence that the accused occupied the premises and had the power to deal with the drugs; admissions notwithstanding, sufficient independent evidence established possession and knowledge; the wife's cautioned statement was admissible under section 32 because she could not be procured and the statement was relevant; subsection 2A of s39B is retrospective but requires satisfaction of limbs (a) and (d) and either (b) or (c); limb (d) (assistance to enforcement agency) was not satisfied so the court set aside the life sentence and substituted the...

Court Disposition

Convictions affirmed on all four charges; appeal by prosecution allowed on sentence for first (trafficking) charge; life sentence set aside and substituted with death; sentences for three possession charges and other orders affirmed.

Orders

  • Conviction on all four charges affirmed
  • Life imprisonment and 15 strokes imposed by High Court on first charge set aside