Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MEGALANATHAN MARIAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant charged with possession (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. prosecution called seven witnesses (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. failure to indicate presumption (Para 6) |
| 4. counsel argued on possession (Para 8) |
| 5. prosecution bears legal burden (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. duties of trial judge outlined (Para 10) |
| 7. trial judge not obligated (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. no appealable errors found (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The appellant was charged in the Magistrates Court under s 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (' DDA 1952'), which is punishable under s 39A(2) of the same Act. He was found guilty and sentenced to four years of imprisonment commencing from the date of conviction, along with four strokes of whipping. He appealed to the High Court , but his appeal was unsuccessful, as the Court dismissed it and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court .
[2] The appellant subsequently sought leave to appeal under s 50(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 . The legal question presented was:
"Presumption tidak dinyatakan diakhir kes pendakwaan, samada keputusan Mahkamah Majistret tersebut betul ataupun boleh dib
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
