[ ] 1. ) RAVECHANDARAN A/L T.M RAJOO 2. ) Mai Hong Quyen

[ ] 1. ) RAVECHANDARAN A/L T.M RAJOO 2. ) Mai Hong Quyen

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material inconsistencies about the seized plastic bag (CCTV v seizure testimony), failure to exclude access by other identified individuals (notably a tenant named Anandaraj), lack of evidence of exclusive control or knowledge by the accused, and absence of overt acts constituting trafficking meant the elements of the offences under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act read with s34 Penal Code were not proved; accused discharged without calling them to enter defence.

Citation
PA-45A-16-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Ravechandaran A/L T.M. Rajoo; Accused: Mai Hong Quyen
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Case Number
PA-45A-16-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Close of Prosecution Case; Acquitted (no Case to Answer)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; no case to answer on both charges
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Prima Facie, Chain of Custody, Joint Intent (s34), Presumptions Under S37 Dangerous Drugs Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Trafficking Possession Prima Facie Chain of Custody Joint Intent (s34) +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Ravechandaran A/L T.M. Rajoo

Accused

Mai Hong Quyen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Close of Prosecution Case; Acquitted (no Case to Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case at close of its case
  2. 2 Whether accused had possession and knowledge of the seized drugs
  3. 3 Whether accused acted with joint intention under s34 to traffic drugs

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material inconsistencies about the seized plastic bag (CCTV v seizure testimony), failure to exclude access by other identified individuals (notably a tenant named Anandaraj), lack of evidence of exclusive control or knowledge by the accused, and absence of overt acts constituting trafficking meant the elements of the offences under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act read with s34 Penal Code were not proved; accused discharged without calling them to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; no case to answer on both charges

Orders

  • Both accused are discharged and released without being called to enter defence on both charges under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with s34 Penal Code
  • Prosecution filed two appeals to the Court of Appeal (Notices P-05(LB)-492-10/2024 and P-05(LB)-494-10/2024)