Pendakwa Raya v VEDANAYAGAN A/L JONSON

Case Significance

Illustrates how possession charges under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 are resolved alongside trafficking charges from a single operation, with concurrent four-year custodial terms.

This High Court criminal decision at Shah Alam forms part of the grounds of judgment in a consolidated drug prosecution against two accused, this case number carrying charges of possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution arose from a single operation at an industrial area in which, following the arrests of both accused and a pointing-out by the first accused, drugs were recovered and analysed, and the two faced a combination of trafficking charges under section 39B and possession charges under "seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952). The evidential issues common to the trial included whether a police report lodged by the first accused after receiving documents under section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code was admissible as a defence or was a bare denial, and the reliability of the recovery and handling of the exhibits by the prosecution witnesses. The Court weighed the mitigation advanced against the aggravating features urged by the Deputy Public Prosecutor, including the way the drugs had been divided into a large number of small packets ready for distribution. On the possession charges brought under this case number, the Court convicted the first accused of both charges under section 12(2) and imposed imprisonment of "4 tahun" (four years) on each, to run concurrently from the date of arrest; the second accused was likewise convicted of possession under section 12(2) and sentenced to concurrent terms of four years. The Court explained that, although the net weight of the drugs recovered exceeded one hundred grams, the way in which the whole quantity had been prepared in hundreds of small packets pointed to readiness for distribution, a factor relevant to the seriousness of the offending overall. Read together with the trafficking case tried at the same time, the judgment illustrates how possession and trafficking charges arising from one operation are resolved, and how the courts fix custodial terms for possession under section 12(2). The reasoning on the section 51A police report and on the credibility of the defence accounts is a useful feature of the decision.