SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 MarsdenLR 1987

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
PP – Appellant
Versus
HEERA SINGH MOHAN SINGH – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: AA-45A-6-06/2019]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohd Fitri Sadarudin ,Respondent Advocate: Naranya Singh Asa Singh,Amrick Singh Sandu

Possession of drugs can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including personal items and conduct, and does not require exclusive control; the presumption of possession under the Dangerous Drugs Act can establish knowledge of the drug's nature.

Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Charge of trafficking in cannabis - Accused found in possession of 468.6 grams of cannabis at residential premises - Evidence of possession established through proximity of personal items and conduct of accused - Court affirmed that possession need not be exclusive, and knowledge can be inferred from circumstances - Prosecution's case made out beyond reasonable doubt with reliance on s 37(d) presumption of possession. (Paras 2, 45, 89, 156)

(B) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 8 and 24 - Accused's plea for leniency admissible as conduct - Court clarified that such statements are not subject to voluntariness rule - Defence arguments regarding the inadmissibility of statements due to coercion were rejected. (Paras 147, 150)

(C) Impeachment of witness - Credibility of key witness undermined due to contradictions in testimony - Court ruled that the witness's evidence was to be disregarded in its entirety. (Paras 78, 79)

Facts of the case:
Accused charged with trafficking in cannabis after police raid discovered 468.6 grams of cannabis in a room where personal items belonging to the accused were also found. Accused's father, a key witness, was impeached due to contradictions in his statements. (Paras 1, 44, 78)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the accused had custody and control over the drugs, and the prosecution had established a prima facie case of trafficking. The plea for leniency was admissible, and the evidence of the impeached witness was disregarded. (Paras 89, 156)

Issues: The main issues addressed included the sufficiency of evidence for possession, the credibility of witnesses, and the admissibility of the accused's plea for leniency. (Paras 43, 156)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that possession need not be exclusive and can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the presence of personal items and the accused's conduct at the time of the raid. The presumption under s 37(d) of the DDA was applied, affirming that possession implies knowledge of the drug's nature. (Paras 89, 156)

Result: The accused was convicted of trafficking in cannabis and sentenced to life imprisonment with additional strokes of whipping. (Paras 164, 165)

Table of Content
1. accused charged with trafficking cannabis. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of evidence collected during raid. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. prosecution's arguments on possession and knowledge. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. court's evaluation of evidence and arguments. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133)
5. final judgment and sentencing. (Para 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164)
Ya Su Tiang Joo JC:

Introduction

[1] Heera Singh A/L Mohan ("the accused"), was charged and tried for trafficking 468.6 grams of cannabis, a dangerous drug, at No 134 Jalan Eng Weng Hup, Taman Permata, 30100 Ipoh ("the House") on 13 August 2018 under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA ").

[2] The charge in its original language says:

"Bahawa kamu pada 13 August 2018, jam lebih kurang 10:45 pagi, bertempat di rumah No 134, Jalan Eng Weng Hup, Taman Permata, 30100 Ipoh, di dalam daerah Kinta, di dalam Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu sejumlah berat 468.6 gram Cannabis dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

Prosecution's Case

[3] Premised upon oral, documentary and physical evidence produced by the prosecution, the prosecution's case is as follows.

[4] On 13 August 2018 at about 9:00 am., ASP Mohamad Azri bin Mohamad Jalil (PW5) received information about drug trafficking. He proceeded to give a briefing on the proposed operation to Detective Sub-Inspector Ismail bin Mat Deli (PW6) and four other police personnel at the office of the Narcotics Investigation Division situated at the Police Contingent Headquarters of Perak.

[5] At or about 10:45 am. on the same day, PW5 together with a raiding team arrived at the site of the proposed operation, that is, the House.

[6] PW5 found the House to be closed and locked. He knocked on the door and called out to the occupant(s) to open the door. He identified himself as the police.

[7] A shirtless man with shorts and who looked like he has just got up from sleep, and who's the accused, opened the door.

[8] The accused was detained and upon a physical examination carried out on him in the living hall, no incriminating items were found on him.

[9] PW5 then carried out a search in the first bedroom on the left of the House and found on the dressing table in this bedroom the following:

a) a black plastic bag containing compressed chunks of dried leaves suspected to be cannabis ("ganja") (exhibit P7A-IZ(2) and (3)); and

b) a closed plastic container with the word "Lava" and in it were dried leaves suspected to be cannabis (exhibit P7B-IZ(2) and (3)).

c) Photographs of the above items are in exhibit P10 (photo nos 7,9 and 10)

[10] Thereafter a search was carried in the drawer in this first bedroom and the following were also found:

a) a wallet with the words "Compare Treasure" (exhibit P8A) and in it was the identity card with the name of: Heera Singh a/I Mohan Singh, new Identity Card No 840730086283 carrying the address no 134, Jalan Eng Weng Hup, Taman Permata, 30100 Ipoh, Perak (exhibit P8B);

b) one passport in the name of Heera Singh a/I Mohan Singh, new Identity Card No 840730086283, passport No A51347116 (exhibit P8C);

c) one document which is a record of appeal carrying the name of Heera Singh a/I Mohan Singh as the respondent (exhibit P8D);

d) one document

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top