MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

Court unanimously held prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs (including 845g cannabis) by circumstantial evidence (bag held by appellant, car registered to appellant, keys and personal items found); failure to call alleged co-user did not amount to suppression under s114(g); absence of fingerprint/DNA was not fatal; appellant failed to rebut presumption under s37(d) ADB and innocent carrier defence failed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Citation
B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mugunthan a/l Manickam; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 July 2025
Case Number
B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of High Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Custody, Knowledge, Trafficking, Innocent Carrier, Wilful Blindness, Chain of Custody, Presumption Under S37(d) ADB, S114(g) Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics Law Evidence Law Appeals Possession Custody Knowledge Trafficking +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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mugunthan a/l Manickam

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved appellant's control/possession and knowledge of drugs
  2. 2 Whether failure to call co-occupant witness (Sathianathan) prejudiced appellant and invoked s114(g) Evidence Act
  3. 3 Whether absence of fingerprint/DNA evidence undermines identification/possession

Ratio Decidendi

Court unanimously held prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs (including 845g cannabis) by circumstantial evidence (bag held by appellant, car registered to appellant, keys and personal items found); failure to call alleged co-user did not amount to suppression under s114(g); absence of fingerprint/DNA was not fatal; appellant failed to rebut presumption under s37(d) ADB and innocent carrier defence failed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of High Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 dismissed and conviction and sentence affirmed
  • Appeals B-05(SH)-340-08/2023 and B-05(SH)-350-09/2023 cancelled/withdrawn as academic