GOPALAKRISHNAN A/L NADARAJA

GOPALAKRISHNAN A/L NADARAJA

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because it did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge and exclusive control/power of disposal over the drugs; crucial material witnesses (Somma Kumaran and Raj) were not called and the investigation to trace them was insufficient; DNA evidence indicated other contributors in the locked room and CCTV was not produced; these gaps created reasonable doubt and required acquittal without calling the accused to enter defence.

Citation
BA-45A-128-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Gopalakrishnan A/L Nadaraja
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 October 2025
Case Number
BA-45A-128-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs (section 39 B ADB 1952) / End of Prosecution Case Decision on Prima Facie
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged of all three charges; prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case
Legal Topics
Possession, Knowledge, Trafficking/distribution, Chain of Custody, DNA Evidence, Missing Material Witness, CCTV Evidence, Radhi Direction, Investigative Duty
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Possession Knowledge Trafficking/distribution Chain of Custody DNA Evidence +4 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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Gopalakrishnan A/L Nadaraja

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs (section 39 B ADB 1952) / End of Prosecution Case Decision on Prima Facie

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved elements of section 39B ADB 1952 (possession, custody, knowledge, trafficking)
  2. 2 Whether accused had exclusive access and power of disposal over premises and seized items
  3. 3 Sufficiency of prosecution investigation and failure to call material witness Somma Kumaran and witness Raj

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because it did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge and exclusive control/power of disposal over the drugs; crucial material witnesses (Somma Kumaran and Raj) were not called and the investigation to trace them was insufficient; DNA evidence indicated other contributors in the locked room and CCTV was not produced; these gaps created reasonable doubt and required acquittal without calling the accused to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged of all three charges; prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case

Orders

  • Accused Gopalakrishnan A/L Nadaraja is acquitted and discharged of P2A, P2B and P2C without being called to enter defence