Irewan Effandy Bin Ismail [ ]

Irewan Effandy Bin Ismail [ ]

The Court held that the prosecution proved possession and knowledge of methamphetamine by the appellant on the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt (s.37(d) and s.39B(1)(a) ADB 1952): SP2 was a credible ocular witness whose evidence was materially corroborated by police evidence (SP6), seller testimony (SP7) and investigative records (SP9 and JPJ); omissions by the prosecution (non‑production of the registered owner and of 'Ah Beng') were not material, did not amount to suppression, and did not justify drawing an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950; therefore conviction and sentence were upheld.

Citation
K-05(SH)-648-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Accused: Irewan Effandy bin Ismail; Respondent / Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Case Number
K-05(SH)-648-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offence) / Appeal Judgment at the Court of Appeal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession and Knowledge of Drugs, Section 39 B ADB 1952, Section 37(d) ADB 1952, Adverse Inference S.114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Witness Credibility and Corroboration, Prosecutorial Discretion to Call Witnesses, Prima Facie and Burden at Close of Prosecution
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics / Dangerous Drugs Law Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Possession and Knowledge of Drugs Section 39 B ADB 1952 Section 37(d) ADB 1952 Adverse Inference S.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 +3 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irewan Effandy bin Ismail

Appellant / Accused

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Respondent / Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Offence) / Appeal Judgment at the Court of Appeal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession and knowledge of methamphetamine beyond reasonable doubt under s.37(d) ADB 1952 and s.39B(1)(a) ADB 1952
  2. 2 Whether SP2 (co-occupant) was a credible witness whose evidence required corroboration
  3. 3 Whether prosecution's failure to call the registered owner of the vehicle or the person known as 'Ah Beng' justified an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 or created material gaps in the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the prosecution proved possession and knowledge of methamphetamine by the appellant on the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt (s.37(d) and s.39B(1)(a) ADB 1952): SP2 was a credible ocular witness whose evidence was materially corroborated by police evidence (SP6), seller testimony (SP7) and investigative records (SP9 and JPJ); omissions by the prosecution (non‑production of the registered owner and of 'Ah Beng') were not material, did not amount to suppression, and did not justify drawing an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950; therefore conviction and sentence were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Conviction under section 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 affirmed