THIAGARAJAN A/L RAMAN

THIAGARAJAN A/L RAMAN

Appellate court upheld trial judge's findings: contradictions in prosecution evidence were technical and non‑material, chain of custody was intact, and facts (presence of seized packets, packing equipment and appellant's control) established possession and distribution under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; accordingly convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Citation
K-05(SH)-276-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Perayu (appellant): Thiagarajan a/l Raman (No. K/P: 840313-02-5279); Respondent (prosecution): Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 September 2025
Case Number
K-05(SH)-276-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed.
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution/trafficking, Chain of Custody, Credibility of Witnesses, Materiality of Contradictions, Exclusive Possession
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics / Dangerous Drugs Law Evidence Law Appellate Review Possession Distribution/trafficking Chain of Custody Credibility of Witnesses +2 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thiagarajan a/l Raman (No. K/P: 840313-02-5279)

Perayu (appellant)

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent (prosecution)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SP3 was the arresting officer and credibility of his evidence
  2. 2 Whether the chain of custody for seized items was preserved
  3. 3 Whether elements of possession and distribution/trafficking were proved

Ratio Decidendi

Appellate court upheld trial judge's findings: contradictions in prosecution evidence were technical and non‑material, chain of custody was intact, and facts (presence of seized packets, packing equipment and appellant's control) established possession and distribution under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; accordingly convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed.

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences under Seksyen 39B(1)(a) and Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (and sentencing under Seksyen 39B(2) / 39A(2)) are upheld.
  • High Court judgment dated 25 September 2025 is affirmed.