[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) ROSLAN BIN MOHD HUSSIAH 2. ) VINOD KUMAR A/L AROKIADASS

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) ROSLAN BIN MOHD HUSSIAH 2. ) VINOD KUMAR A/L AROKIADASS

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie that the accused had possession, knowledge and control of the seized drugs because the evidence (CCTV, GPS, company records and investigator assertions) did not show the bag was placed into the lorry by the accused, there were no forensic links (eg fingerprints) or eyewitness evidence connecting the accused to the bag, and chain of custody and discovery locations were not established sufficiently; mere presence of the bag in a vehicle driven/occupied by the accused is insufficient to meet the prosecution's burden at close of its case.

Citation
CB-45A-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Roslan bin Mohd Hussiah; Accused: Vinod Kumar a/l Arokiadass
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 September 2025
Case Number
CB-45A-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Close of Prosecution / Decision on Prima Facie Case
Outcome
No prima facie case established; charges dismissed and accused discharged at close of prosecution
Legal Topics
Prima Facie, Possession, Knowledge, Control, Trafficking, Chain of Custody, Forensic Evidence, Cctv/gps Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Prima Facie Possession Knowledge Control Trafficking +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Roslan bin Mohd Hussiah

Accused

Vinod Kumar a/l Arokiadass

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Close of Prosecution / Decision on Prima Facie Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seized substances are dangerous drugs
  2. 2 Whether accused had possession, knowledge and control of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie that the accused had possession, knowledge and control of the seized drugs because the evidence (CCTV, GPS, company records and investigator assertions) did not show the bag was placed into the lorry by the accused, there were no forensic links (eg fingerprints) or eyewitness evidence connecting the accused to the bag, and chain of custody and discovery locations were not established sufficiently; mere presence of the bag in a vehicle driven/occupied by the accused is insufficient to meet the prosecution's burden at close of its case.

Court Disposition

No prima facie case established; charges dismissed and accused discharged at close of prosecution

Orders

  • Charges against Roslan bin Mohd Hussiah dismissed and he is discharged
  • Charges against Vinod Kumar a/l Arokiadass dismissed and he is discharged