Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) KANNATHASAN A/L NEDENCHELIAN 2. ) MUGILVAANAN A/L GUNASEGARAN

Case Significance

Illustrates that a section 39B trafficking prosecution can fail at the end of a full trial where the accused raise a reasonable doubt through chain-of-evidence inconsistencies and conduct inconsistent with guilt, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt resting throughout on the prosecution.

This High Court decision at Temerloh concerns a joint charge of drug trafficking that resulted in acquittal at the end of a full trial, on the ground that the accused raised a reasonable doubt. The two accused were charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, read with section 34 of the Penal Code, with trafficking 51.8 grams of a heroin and monoacetylmorphines mixture found in a rental Toyota Altis at Bentong, Pahang, in March 2021. The prosecution's case was that a raiding officer, acting on information, found the two accused in the car with the drugs at the handbrake area between them, and that the car had been cleaned and empty when rented out. The defence contended that there were gaps and a break in the chain of evidence: the exhibit movement records were inconsistent, and there were differing entries for the receipt of the drug exhibits, raising doubt whether the drugs tested by the chemist were the same as those seized. Relying on Gunalan Ramachandran v PP, counsel argued that confusion in the exhibit records broke the evidential chain. The court examined whether this reflected actual tampering or mere documentary error, but it also weighed the conduct of the accused: they had voluntarily attended a police station to obtain an interstate travel permit under the Movement Control Order and had passed through road blocks along the way, conduct the court considered inconsistent with persons knowingly in possession and control of trafficking quantities of drugs, who would have risked arrest. Reminding itself that the burden lay throughout on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt, the court found that their evidence had done so. It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and ordered both accused acquitted and discharged.