Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) Vedanayagan A/l Jonson 2. ) Kumares A/l Sinaiah

Case Significance

Illustrates common-intention drug trafficking under section 39B, the evidential treatment of a section 51A police report, and post-reform sentencing of 30 years and 12 strokes in place of death.

This High Court criminal decision at Shah Alam sets out the grounds of judgment in a consolidated drug prosecution against two accused tried together, with the trafficking charges brought under this case number. The two were charged, with common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code, with trafficking in dangerous drugs under "seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) — one charge concerning heroin and monoacetylmorphines and another concerning methamphetamine, the drugs having been recovered following the arrests and a pointing-out by the first accused. A recurring evidential question was whether a police report lodged by the first accused, after documents were supplied to him under section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, could be received as his defence or amounted to a bare denial. The Court examined the chain of recovery, the statutory presumptions of possession and knowledge, and the credibility of the accounts, and treated the second accused’s explanation as an afterthought and mere denial. In mitigation the first accused, expressing remorse, pointed to the weight of the drugs as not being large, while the Deputy Public Prosecutor urged that the drugs had been divided into a large number of small packets ready for distribution and that the public interest called for a deterrent sentence. On the trafficking charges under this case number, the Court convicted the first accused and, exercising the sentencing discretion available following reform of the mandatory death penalty, imposed imprisonment of "30 tahun dan 12 kali sebatan" (30 years and 12 strokes of the cane) on each charge, to run concurrently from the date of arrest, reasoning that he should have the opportunity to return to his family and society after serving his term. The second accused, by contrast, was found not guilty of the trafficking charges and was "dilepaskan dan dibebaskan" (discharged and acquitted). The judgment illustrates the treatment of common-intention trafficking, section 51A police reports and post-reform sentencing.