PANDITHAN A/L THANGARAJOO

PANDITHAN A/L THANGARAJOO

Appellate court upheld trial judge's findings: prosecution proved possession, custody and knowledge by evidence (drugs found on accused, personal items, accused directing police to stor and producing keys, exclusive control of stored vehicle) and any omission (failure to call certain witnesses or to indicate statutory presumption at close) did not cause substantial injustice or amount to withholding of material evidence; therefore convictions and sentences affirmed.

Citation
B-05(SH)-598-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/perayu: Pandithan a/l Thangarajoo; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 August 2025
Case Number
B-05(SH)-598-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking/distribution, Statutory Presumption Under S.37(d) DDA 1952, Admissibility of Conduct (s.8 Evidence Act 1950), Adverse Inference / Withholding of Evidence (s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Trafficking/distribution Statutory Presumption Under S.37(d) DDA 1952 Admissibility of Conduct (s.8 Evidence Act 1950) Adverse Inference / Withholding of Evidence (s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950)

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pandithan a/l Thangarajoo

Appellant/perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession, control and knowledge of drugs beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether failure to call Khairul Izzane created a fatal gap or triggered adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether trial judge erred by failing to indicate use of statutory presumption under s.37(d) DDA 1952 at close of prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

Appellate court upheld trial judge's findings: prosecution proved possession, custody and knowledge by evidence (drugs found on accused, personal items, accused directing police to stor and producing keys, exclusive control of stored vehicle) and any omission (failure to call certain witnesses or to indicate statutory presumption at close) did not cause substantial injustice or amount to withholding of material evidence; therefore convictions and sentences affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed