NAVINDRAHKUMAR A/L ASOK KUMAR

NAVINDRAHKUMAR A/L ASOK KUMAR

The Court upheld the convictions because the direct evidence of the agent provocateur and police witnesses proved a negotiated sale/trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; statutory admissibility of undercover evidence (s.40A) and the totality of credible witness testimony rendered the prosecution case complete despite non‑production of ancillary documentary items and the absence of some witness witnesses; defences of innocent carrier and entrapment failed and common intention under s.34 was established by inference from conduct.

Citation
J-05(SH)-138-03/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (t1): Mat Azam Bin Nasir; Appellant (t5): Navindrahkumar a/l Asok Kumar; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 November 2025
Case Number
J-05(SH)-138-03/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld
Legal Topics
Trafficking Under Dangerous Drugs Act, Agent Provocateur Admissibility, Wilful Blindness/innocent Carrier, Common Intention S.34, Section 40 a Evidence, Section 114(g) Adverse Inference, Entrapment, Sentencing After Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Appeals Trafficking Under Dangerous Drugs Act Agent Provocateur Admissibility Wilful Blindness/innocent Carrier Common Intention S.34 +4 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mat Azam Bin Nasir

Appellant (t1)

Navindrahkumar a/l Asok Kumar

Appellant (t5)

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility and weight of agent provocateur evidence under s.40A DDA
  2. 2 Sufficiency of prosecution evidence to prove sale/trafficking under s.39B(1)(a) DDA
  3. 3 Failure to call material witnesses (T2, T3, T4) and effect under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the convictions because the direct evidence of the agent provocateur and police witnesses proved a negotiated sale/trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; statutory admissibility of undercover evidence (s.40A) and the totality of credible witness testimony rendered the prosecution case complete despite non‑production of ancillary documentary items and the absence of some witness witnesses; defences of innocent carrier and entrapment failed and common intention under s.34 was established by inference from conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and convictions of Mat Azam bin Nasir (T1) and Navindrahkumar a/l Asok Kumar (T5) affirmed
  • Sentences of imprisonment for life (treated as 30 years from date of arrest 13 July 2018) and 12 strokes each upheld