1. Mogan Raj a/l Ravi 2. Shankar a/l Muthusamy

1. Mogan Raj a/l Ravi 2. Shankar a/l Muthusamy

The double presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Act used to secure trafficking convictions were unconstitutional; accordingly trafficking convictions were set aside and substituted with possession offences under section 6 DDA, but the trial evidence (credible police testimony, possession of keys, documents, DNA and conduct of accused) sufficiently proved possession of drugs and firearms so convictions under possession/offending firearms provisions and related sentences were upheld or adjusted by the Court of Appeal.

Citation
W-05(M)-431-09/2017, W-05(M)-434-09/2017, W-05(M)-435-09/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: MOGAN RAJ A/L RAVI; Appellant: SHANKAR A/L MUTHUSAMY; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Case Number
W-05(M)-431-09/2017, W-05(M)-434-09/2017, W-05(M)-435-09/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Drug and Firearms Offences / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal No. W-05(M)-431-09/2017 allowed in part; trafficking convictions set aside and substituted with possession offences under section 6 DDA with revised sentences. Appeals W-05(M)-434-09/2017 and W-05(M)-435-09/2017 dismissed and High Court convictions/sentences affirmed (with adjustments to effective dates as...
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Presumptions of Law, Double Presumption, Adverse Inference, Appellate Review, Search and Seizure, Corroboration
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Firearms Law Evidence Law Sentencing Law Possession Trafficking Presumptions of Law +5 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 7 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MOGAN RAJ A/L RAVI

Appellant

SHANKAR A/L MUTHUSAMY

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Drug and Firearms Offences / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants had custody, control and knowledge (possession) of the drugs and firearm found in Unit 3
  2. 2 Whether the double presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Act applicable to trafficking are constitutionally valid
  3. 3 Whether failure to call offered witnesses (Murugaya and police officers) justifies an adverse inference under s114 Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The double presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Act used to secure trafficking convictions were unconstitutional; accordingly trafficking convictions were set aside and substituted with possession offences under section 6 DDA, but the trial evidence (credible police testimony, possession of keys, documents, DNA and conduct of accused) sufficiently proved possession of drugs and firearms so convictions under possession/offending firearms provisions and related sentences were upheld or adjusted by the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal No. W-05(M)-431-09/2017 allowed in part; trafficking convictions set aside and substituted with possession offences under section 6 DDA with revised sentences. Appeals W-05(M)-434-09/2017 and W-05(M)-435-09/2017 dismissed and High Court convictions/sentences affirmed (with adjustments to effective dates as...

Orders

  • Set aside trafficking convictions in Appeal No. W-05(M)-431-09/2017 and substitute convictions for possession under section 6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Sentence each appellant to 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan for the first substituted charge (per appellant) and 8 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan for the second substituted charge (per appellant)