Pendakwa Raya v VEAKNESWARAN A/L RAMASAMY

Case Significance

Illustrates that where multiple drug charges from one operation are tried together, the possession element is assessed separately for each location, and a failure to prove custody and control at a particular premises defeats a prima facie case for the drugs found there.

This High Court decision at Temerloh concerns drug charges heard together against a single accused arising from a police operation on 17 January 2022. In this case the accused faced two trafficking charges under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) in respect of methamphetamine — 583.3 grams and 94.32 grams — said to have been found at a house at Taman Sri Layang, Mentakab. Related possession charges under section 12(2) of the same Act concerned drugs found at a second house and in front of a Petronas petrol station. The court considered whether, at the close of the prosecution case, a prima facie case had been made out on each charge, which turned on proof of the accused's knowledge, control and possession of the drugs.

Examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits, the court drew a distinction between the drugs found in the two houses and the drugs found at the petrol station. In respect of the drugs at the houses, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the element of possession — it could not be shown that the accused had the requisite custody and control of the drugs recovered in those premises — so that no prima facie case was made out. In respect of the drugs at the petrol station, by contrast, the evidence showed the accused's knowledge, control and possession, and a prima facie case was established.

Accordingly, on the two trafficking charges relating to the drugs in the house, the court ordered the accused dibebas dan dilepaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri (acquitted and discharged without being called to enter a defence), while on the petrol-station charges the accused was called to enter his defence. The judgment illustrates how the possession element is assessed premises-by-premises when charges from a single operation are tried together.