Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) ALVIN RAJ A/L ANDREW ROY 2. ) MITHRA A/P R.SELVAKUMAR

ba-45a-19-02-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 2 October 2025 • BA-45A-19-02/2022 • 38 min read
9 cases cited (1 SG, 8 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (5)

Parties (3)

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of the prima-facie-case threshold to the elements of possession, knowledge and common intention in a joint drug-trafficking charge under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 where drugs are recovered from a concealed part of a vehicle.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is a ruling at the close of the prosecution case in a drug-trafficking prosecution. The two accused were jointly charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code for trafficking in 270.2 grams of methamphetamine, the drugs having been found in the dashboard of a car connected to the accused following a raid near a temple in the Bangi institutional area. The accused claimed trial, and the prosecution called seven witnesses, including the raiding officer, the investigating officer and the chemist. At the close of the prosecution case the court, per Latifah Hj Mohd Tahar J, assessed whether a prima facie case had been made out on every essential ingredient of the offence. The court found that while the prosecution had successfully established the identity of the drugs as methamphetamine, it had failed to prove on a prima facie basis that the accused had custody, control and possession of, and knowledge of, the drugs found in the dashboard, and had also failed to prove the common intention required to fix both accused with joint liability for trafficking. The court also had regard to section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 concerning the drawing of an adverse inference. Because an essential ingredient of the offence had not been established at the prima facie stage, the court held that the prosecution had not discharged its burden, and ordered both accused to be discharged and acquitted (dilepaskan dan dibebaskan) without being called to enter their defence. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the courts apply the prima-facie-case threshold to the essential elements of possession, knowledge and common intention in a joint drug-trafficking charge where the drugs are recovered from a concealed part of a shared vehicle.

Why were the accused discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case?

Although the prosecution proved the identity of the drugs as 270.2 grams of methamphetamine, the court found it had failed to establish a prima facie case that the accused had custody, control, possession and knowledge of the drugs found in the car dashboard, and had not proved the common intention needed to fix both accused jointly, so they were discharged and acquitted without being called to enter a defence.

What offence were the accused charged with?

The two accused were jointly charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code for trafficking in 270.2 grams of methamphetamine recovered from the dashboard of a car.

Cases Cited (9)

SLR (1)
[1995] 2 SLR 424
UK (1)
[1968] 2 All ER 356
AU (1)
[2017] QCA 23
MY (6)
[1995] 4 MLRH 256 [1997] 1 CLJ 233 [2008] 7 MLJ 331 [2015] 3 MLJ 134 [2016] MLJU 1824 [2021] 4 MLJ 479

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-45a-19-02-2022)