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

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

Charges were valid and included s 34; the facts established a common intention between the appellants so both are liable under s 34 for the drug trafficking offences; failure to call landlord's wife and son did not justify an adverse inference under s 114(g) because they were not material witnesses; prior counsel's omissions did not amount to flagrant incompetency or cause miscarriage of justice; therefore convictions and concurrent sentences are affirmed.

Citation
05(L)-26-03/2025(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Ramachandran A/L Verasamy; Appellant: Kelana Bin Yunus; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
L
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 May 2026
Case Number
05(L)-26-03/2025(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal (federal Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and concurrent sentences affirmed by the Federal Court
Legal Topics
Common Intention (s 34 Penal Code), Presumption of Trafficking (s 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), Adverse Inference (s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950), Ineffective Assistance of Counsel / Flagrant Incompetency
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Common Intention (s 34 Penal Code) Presumption of Trafficking (s 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) Adverse Inference (s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel / Flagrant Incompetency

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramachandran A/L Verasamy

Appellant

Kelana Bin Yunus

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 34 Penal Code was omitted from the charges and the legal consequence thereof
  2. 2 Whether common intention under s 34 was established between the appellants
  3. 3 Whether adverse inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 should be drawn for failure to call landlord's wife and son

Ratio Decidendi

Charges were valid and included s 34; the facts established a common intention between the appellants so both are liable under s 34 for the drug trafficking offences; failure to call landlord's wife and son did not justify an adverse inference under s 114(g) because they were not material witnesses; prior counsel's omissions did not amount to flagrant incompetency or cause miscarriage of justice; therefore convictions and concurrent sentences are affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and concurrent sentences affirmed by the Federal Court

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions and sentences of the courts below are affirmed