PENDAKWARAYA Tn. Mohd. Radzi bin Abdul Razak Public Prosecutor [Attorney General’s Chambers] En. K. K. Mak [Messrs. K. K. Mak & Co.]

PENDAKWARAYA Tn. Mohd. Radzi bin Abdul Razak Public Prosecutor [Attorney General’s Chambers] En. K. K. Mak [Messrs. K. K. Mak & Co.]

Accused had custody and control of the whisky box containing 183.2g of methamphetamine found on the front passenger seat while he was the sole occupant and driver, triggering the statutory presumption under s37(d) DDA which he failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; chemist evidence (P17) was credible and not inherently incredible despite non-production of GCMS worksheet/library reading; transporting/carrying the box satisfied trafficking under s2 DDA; no mandatory s39B(2A)(d) assistance to enforcement proved; therefore guilty of trafficking and sentenced to death under s39B(2).

Citation
CRIMINAL TRIAL NO: WA-45A-77-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Mehandran a/l Kandaiah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 February 2020
Case Number
CRIMINAL TRIAL NO: WA-45A-77-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Trial Judgment and Sentencing (conviction)
Outcome
convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession and Custody, Statutory Presumptions S37(d) DDA, Chemist Evidence (gcms), Wilful Blindness, Chain of Custody, Recall of Witnesses S425 CPC, Sentencing Discretion S39 B(2 A) DDA
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedure Trafficking Possession and Custody Statutory Presumptions S37(d) DDA Chemist Evidence (gcms) +4 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 9 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Mehandran a/l Kandaiah

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / Trial Judgment and Sentencing (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession and knowledge of drugs under s37(d) DDA
  2. 2 Whether accused was trafficking under s2 DDA by transporting/carrying
  3. 3 Whether statutory presumption of possession was rebutted on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Accused had custody and control of the whisky box containing 183.2g of methamphetamine found on the front passenger seat while he was the sole occupant and driver, triggering the statutory presumption under s37(d) DDA which he failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; chemist evidence (P17) was credible and not inherently incredible despite non-production of GCMS worksheet/library reading; transporting/carrying the box satisfied trafficking under s2 DDA; no mandatory s39B(2A)(d) assistance to enforcement proved; therefore guilty of trafficking and sentenced to death under s39B(2).

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Convicted under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Sentence: death by hanging under section 39B(2) DDA