Mugilan A/l Muniandy [ ]

Mugilan A/l Muniandy [ ]

The Court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offence: the seized substance was methamphetamine of 133.67g; the appellant had direct/actual possession by virtue of control and custody of the motorcycle and keys and knowledge inferred from conduct (attempting to snatch the bag and resisting officers), and the quantity invoked the s.37(da) presumption of distribution. Failure to call registered owner or third parties did not constitute suppression under s.114(g) because their evidence was not material to establish possession in the presence of other direct evidence. The defence that the drugs belonged to a third party was an unsupported afterthought....

Citation
W-05(M)-443-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mugilan a/l Muniandy; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 September 2021
Case Number
W-05(M)-443-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offence) / Appeal to the Court of Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After High Court Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution (presumption Under S.37(da)), Chain of Custody, Inference From Conduct (s.8/s.9 Evidence Act), Failure to Call Witnesses (s.114(g) Evidence Act), Mandatory Death Penalty
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Possession Distribution (presumption Under S.37(da)) Chain of Custody Inference From Conduct (s.8/s.9 Evidence Act) Failure to Call Witnesses (s.114(g) Evidence Act) +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mugilan a/l Muniandy

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Offence) / Appeal to the Court of Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After High Court Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession (control, custody, knowledge) beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of intent to distribute under s.37(da) applies given the quantity
  3. 3 Whether failure to call registered owner/other third parties amounted to withholding under s.114(g) Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offence: the seized substance was methamphetamine of 133.67g; the appellant had direct/actual possession by virtue of control and custody of the motorcycle and keys and knowledge inferred from conduct (attempting to snatch the bag and resisting officers), and the quantity invoked the s.37(da) presumption of distribution. Failure to call registered owner or third parties did not constitute suppression under s.114(g) because their evidence was not material to establish possession in the presence of other direct evidence. The defence that the drugs belonged to a third party was an unsupported afterthought....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under s.39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 upheld