Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AKLIANSYAH – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's trafficking charge background (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court's conclusion on appeal decision (Para 2) |
| 3. appellant's main argument regarding trial judge's error (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. court highlights overlooked evidence and inferences (Para 5 , 7 , 12 , 18) |
| 5. defense narrative supporting appellant's claim (Para 8 , 21 , 29) |
| 6. court's critical observations on evidence. (Para 10 , 15 , 19) |
| 7. legal responsibilities of prosecution on evidential burden (Para 13 , 14 , 30) |
| 8. importance of defense evidence in reasoned judgment (Para 20 , 22 , 28) |
| 9. arguments challenging the trial judge's findings. (Para 26) |
| 10. prosecution's burden to disprove defenses. (Para 31 , 32) |
[1] The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence on a charge of trafficking in 1965 grams of methamphetamine, an offence under s 39B(1)(a) and punishable under s 39B(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the Act).
[2] We allowed his appeal and we now give our reasons.
[3] Briefly, the fact of the case goes as follows:
On 22 August 2010 at about 4.15pm, PW2 together with a team of officers had carried out surveillance on a Volvo car parked at the basement parking at the IKEA in Damansara. Soon, the
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
