1. Accused charged with trafficking and possession of dangerous drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 949
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
ABDUL FAREED ABDUL GAFOOR, JC
PP – Appellant
Versus
JAGAPRKHASAM JAGANATHAN – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: JA-45A-140-11/2022]
The prosecution must prove both physical control and mental knowledge of the drug to establish possession. A caution statement under s 37B(1) DDA is inadmissible unless strict compliance, including explanation and understanding by the accused, is proven.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) - Section 39B(1)(a), Section 39B(2), Section 12(2), Section 12(3), Section 37B(1), Section 37(da), Section 2, First Schedule - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 180(1) - Evidence Act 1950 - Section 45 - Prima facie case - Possession - Knowledge - Trafficking - Chain of custody - Admissibility of caution statement.
(B) Possession - Legal elements - Physical and mental elements must be proven - The accused must have the power to deal with the thing as owner and an intention (animus possidendi) to do so - Knowledge of the nature of the thing is essential - Mere custody or control without knowledge is insufficient. (Paras 22-23, 50-53)
(C) Admissibility of caution statement under s 37B(1) DDA - Strict compliance is required - The prosecution must prove that the caution was not only administered but also explained to and understood by the accused - Failure to record the actual words of the caution or the explanation given renders the statement inadmissible. (Paras 43-49)
Facts of the case:
The Accused was charged with three charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking and possession of dangerous drugs (Methamphetamine, Heroin, Monoacetylmorphines, and Ketamine). The drugs were found in a drawer at a residential unit (Paragon Suites). The prosecution’s case relied heavily on a statement allegedly made by the Accused leading police to a house (House 46) where a key and access chip were found, which were then used to access the Paragon Suites unit where the drugs were seized.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case. The ownership of House 46 was not proven, and the link between the Accused and the keys/access chip was not established. There were discrepancies in evidence regarding the seizure of a padlock and the photographs. The caution administered to the Accused under s 37B(1) DDA did not comply with legal requirements, making the statement inadmissible. Consequently, there was no evidence linking the Accused to the drugs or proving his knowledge of them. The prosecution also failed to exclude the possibility of access to the premises by other individuals.
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution had established the elements of possession and knowledge of the drugs against the Accused, and whether the caution statement was admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove the essential elements of possession (physical control and mental knowledge) and that the inadmissibility of the caution statement removed the only direct evidence linking the Accused to the drugs. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the requirements of s 37B(1) DDA for the admissibility of statements and the obligation of the prosecution to exclude access by others to the place where drugs are found.
Result: The Court acquitted and discharged the Accused from all three charges without being called to enter his defence.
Parties: The accused (a private individual) and the Public Prosecutor.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over possession, knowledge, chain of custody, caution statement compliance, and exclusivity of access. (Para 26 , 29 , 32 , 37 , 39 , 43 , 50 , 55 )
3. Accused acquitted and discharged without being called to enter defence. (Para 68 , 69 )
4. What are the required elements to prove possession of drugs in a drug trafficking case?
Possession requires both physical custody or control and knowledge of the drugs, with the mental element of animus possidendi. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
5. What are the requirements for admitting a caution statement under section 37B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952?
The caution must be given, explained, and understood by the accused; contemporaneous records of the caution are important. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
6. Who bears the burden to exclude access by others to the premises where drugs are found?
The prosecution must exclude access by other individuals; the defence is not required to prove possibility of access. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 )
7. What is the effect of discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence?
Unresolved discrepancies create reasonable doubt and may lead to acquittal if they undermine the integrity of evidence. (Para 35 , 62 )
8. Can a conviction in a capital drug trafficking case be based solely on inferential evidence?
No, evidence by inference alone without proof of control is insufficient for conviction in capital cases. (Para 66 )
JUDGMENT
Background
[1] The Accused, Jagaprkhasam a/l Jaganathan, stands charged before this Court with three separate charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA 1952"). The charges relate to an incident occurring on 25 November 2021 at approximately 1.20am at a residential unit known as B 09-06, Paragon Suites, Jalan Inderaputra, Stulang Darat, Johor Bahru, Johor Darul Ta'zim (Paragon house).
[2] The charges against the Accused reads as follows:
FIRST CHARGE
Bahawa kamu pada 25 November 2021, jam lebih kurang 1.20 pagi, di alamat B 09-06, Paragon Suites, Jalan Inderaputra, Stulang Darat, Dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, Di Dalam Negeri Johor, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 87.07 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) akta yang sama.
SECOND CHARGE
Bahawa kamu pada 25 November 2021, jam lebih kurang 1.20 pagi, di alamat B 09-06, Paragon Suites, Jalan Inderaputra, Stulang Darat, Dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, Di Dalam Negeri Johor, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin dan Monoacetylmorphines seberat 15.39 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) akta yang sama.
THIRD CHARGE
Bahawa kamu pada 25 November 2021, jam lebih kurang 1.20 pagi, di alamat B 09-06, Paragon Suites, Jalan Inderaputra, Stulang Darat, Dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, Di Dalam Negeri Johor, telah didapati dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya jenis kesan Methamphetamine dan Ketamine seberat 198.03 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 12(3) akta yang sama.
[3] At the close of the prosecution's case, after having heard the testimony of six (6) witnesses and having evaluated the documentary and physical exhibits, this Court must now determine whether a prima facie case has been made out against the Accused.
The Prosecution's Case
[4] The evidence from the complainant in this case, Inspector Abdul Usairi bin Saini (SP3) (complainant) is that on 24 November 2021 at approximately 11.30pm, led by the Accused, the complainant along with a team from the Johor IPK Narcotics Crime Investigation Department consisting of seven (7) police personnel went to the house at address no. 46/PTD 4712, Jalan Aman Setia, Taman Setia, Iskandar Puteri, Johor. (House 46).
[5] From the inspection inside the house, SP3 found one (1) keychain containing four (4) keys along with one Samsung brand access chip. Further inspection inside the house did not find any illegal items or drugs. The complainant then seized one (1) set of keys containing four (4) keys along with one Samsung access chip for further action.
[6] SP3's evidence also mentioned that upon the seizure, he had questioned the Accused regarding the seized items
[7] As a result of the questioning, SP3 and the raiding team were led by the Accused to the Paragon house. SP3 and the raiding team arrived at the Paragon house at 1.20am.
[8] When the complainant arrived in front of the house, he found the front grill of the house was locked with a padlock inscribed with the word STELAP. Using the key that was seized during the first raid, the Accused opened the padlock and unlocked the front door of the house by entering the code 5862* on the front door panel.
[9] After entering the house, the Accused brought SP3 and the raiding team into the right-side bedroom of the house and pointed to a drawer to SP3 and the raiding team.
[10] Inside the drawer, the raiding team found the following substances:
i. One (1) plastic package containing white substance suspected to be heroin, estimated weight 203 grams (marked as U1);
ii. One (1) plastic package containing white substance suspected to be heroin weighing approximately 206 grams (marked as U2);
iii. One (1) plastic package containing brownish subst
