Julasiri Bin Akilmara [ ]

Julasiri Bin Akilmara [ ]

Failure of the High Court to make a clear finding and inform the appellant whether he had to answer actual or presumed trafficking under Section 37(da) DDA 1952 amounted to a miscarriage of justice; therefore the conviction for trafficking under s39B(1)(a) was unsafe and was set aside and substituted with a conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA 1952, with sentence adjusted accordingly.

Citation
S-05(SH)-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Julasiri bin Akilmara; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 May 2025
Case Number
S-05(SH)-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court conviction for trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) DDA 1952 set aside; substituted with conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA 1952; sentence substituted to 12 years imprisonment from date of arrest; corporal punishment not ordered due to appellant being over 50 years old.
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Presumption of Trafficking, Possession of Drugs, Fair Trial, No Case to Answer, Sentence Substitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Procedural Law Trafficking Presumption of Trafficking Possession of Drugs Fair Trial No Case to Answer +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julasiri bin Akilmara

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to specify whether the accused had to answer actual trafficking under s2 or presumed trafficking under s37(da) DDA 1952
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was in possession of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether the omission caused prejudice/miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Failure of the High Court to make a clear finding and inform the appellant whether he had to answer actual or presumed trafficking under Section 37(da) DDA 1952 amounted to a miscarriage of justice; therefore the conviction for trafficking under s39B(1)(a) was unsafe and was set aside and substituted with a conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA 1952, with sentence adjusted accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court conviction for trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) DDA 1952 set aside; substituted with conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA 1952; sentence substituted to 12 years imprisonment from date of arrest; corporal punishment not ordered due to appellant being over 50 years old.

Orders

  • Set aside conviction under Section 39B(1)(a) DDA 1952
  • Substitute conviction under Section 12(2) DDA 1952