MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that circumstantial and direct evidence (appellant holding the bag, possession of car keys, car registered to appellant, personal effects in car, chemical analysis) established control, custody and knowledge of the drugs and that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
B-05(SH)-340-08/2023 (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)-340-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the High Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Knowledge, Innocent Carrier, Wilful Blindness, Presumption Under Section 37(d) ADB 1952, Admissibility of Recorded Statements (s32 Evidence Act 1950), Failure to Call Witness (s114(g) Evidence Act 1950), Chain of Custody
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Possession Knowledge Innocent Carrier Wilful Blindness Presumption Under Section 37(d) ADB 1952 +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 17 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 Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved control, possession and knowledge of the drugs
  2. 2 Whether failure to call co-occupant witness (Sathianathan) justified adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether absence of fingerprint/DNA evidence created reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that circumstantial and direct evidence (appellant holding the bag, possession of car keys, car registered to appellant, personal effects in car, chemical analysis) established control, custody and knowledge of the drugs and that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under section 37(d) ADB 1952; failure to call the co-occupant did not amount to suppression of material evidence and absence of fingerprints/DNA did not create reasonable doubt given the totality of reliable evidence, therefore conviction and sentence were safe and affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the High Court affirmed

Orders

  • Rayuan Jenayah No. B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 dismissed; conviction under section 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 and sentence (life imprisonment from 10/04/2018 and 12 lashes) upheld
  • Rayuan Jenayah No. B-05(SH)-340-08/2023 and B-05(SH)-350-09/2023 cancelled as academic per appellant's withdrawal and because appellant had completed those sentences