1. ) RAMACHANDRAN A/L VERASAMY 2. ) KELANA BIN YUNUS

1. ) RAMACHANDRAN A/L VERASAMY 2. ) KELANA BIN YUNUS

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellants jointly had possession, control and knowledge of the dangerous drugs based on DNA evidence on personal items, the quantity and exposed state of drugs and processing equipment, and occupancy/access evidence; the omission of s.34 from the charge was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
P-05(SH)-594-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Ramachandran a/l Verasamy; Appellant: Kelana bin Yunus; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 March 2025
Case Number
P-05(SH)-594-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences of the High Court are upheld
Legal Topics
Possession and Control, Knowledge, Joint Liability, Search and Seizure, Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 114 Evidence Act 1950, Section 34 Penal Code (rule of Evidence), Sentencing Life Imprisonment and Whipping
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Forensic/dna Evidence Possession and Control Knowledge Joint Liability +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramachandran a/l Verasamy

Appellant

Kelana bin Yunus

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge erred in rejecting defence that appellant1 was not resident and thus prosecution failed to prove possession/knowledge
  2. 2 Whether failure to call or offer certain material witnesses gave rise to adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether appellants were prejudiced by alleged incompetence of their counsel at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellants jointly had possession, control and knowledge of the dangerous drugs based on DNA evidence on personal items, the quantity and exposed state of drugs and processing equipment, and occupancy/access evidence; the omission of s.34 from the charge was not fatal; failure to call peripheral witnesses did not attract an adverse inference; and alleged counsel incompetence did not cause prejudice — thus convictions and sentences were safe and must be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences of the High Court are upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions under s.39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 affirmed