RAGUNATHAN A/L THANGIAH v Pendakwa Raya

j-05sh-451-09-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 8 July 2025 • J-05(SH)-451-09/2024 • 26 min read
17 cases cited (0 SG, 17 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (5)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Illustrates how an accused's act of pointing out concealed drugs, taken together with possession of the key to the premises where they are found, can prove the custody and control required for a conviction under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

This Court of Appeal decision is one of three related criminal appeals by the same appellant, heard together, against convictions for drug trafficking under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) entered by the High Court at Johor Bahru. The facet emphasised in this appeal is proof of possession, custody and control. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had the power to deal with the drugs as an owner, to the exclusion of others: the drugs were recovered as a result of the appellant's own pointing out (tunjuk arah), and the key to the premises where the drugs were found was in the pocket of the appellant's trousers. The appellant argued that these matters did not establish exclusive possession and that the statutory presumption of trafficking under seksyen 37(da) had been wrongly relied upon. The panel of Azman bin Abdullah, Lim Chong Fong and Lim Hock Leng JJCA considered whether the combination of the appellant's conduct in leading the police to the drugs and his possession of the key to the premises supported the trial judge's finding of custody and control, and whether the appellant's conduct evidenced a connection to the drugs admissible under the surrounding-circumstances provisions of the Evidence Act 1950. Reviewing the grounds of the High Court judge, the written and oral submissions and the whole of the evidence, the court was satisfied that possession and control had been properly established and that the trial judge's findings were not perverse. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, maintaining the decision of the High Court. The judgment is a useful illustration of how an accused's act of pointing out drugs, taken with possession of the key to the place where they are hidden, can prove the custody and control required for a trafficking conviction.

Summary

The appellant faced three related drug trafficking appeals heard together, involving charges under s.39B(1)(a) and s.12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for methamphetamine found at premises he led police to via pointing-out. The key issues included proof of possession, custody and knowledge of the drugs, the chain of evidence, and the failure to call co-suspects as prosecution witnesses. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed all appeals against conviction and sentence.

What evidence established the appellant's possession of the drugs?

The court relied on the fact that the drugs were recovered as a result of the appellant's own pointing out and that the key to the premises where they were found was in the appellant's trouser pocket, which together supported the trial judge's finding that the appellant had custody and control of the drugs to the exclusion of others.

What was the outcome of the appeal?

The Court of Appeal was satisfied that possession and control had been properly established, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.

Cases Cited (17)

MY (17)
[1966] 1 MLJ 116 [1987] 1 CLJ 250 [1987] 1 MLJ 492 [1996] 1 MLJ 209 [1997] 1 CLJ 233 [2006] 3 CLJ 597 [2008] 4 CLJ 431 [2009] 2 MLJ 194 [2011] 4 CLJ 113 [2011] MLJU 1491 [2013] 3 MLJ 630 [2013] 4 CLJ 149 [2014] 1 CLJ 433 [2017] 1 CLJ 575 [2018] MLJU 601 [2022] MLJU 1031 [2025] MLJU 35

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (j-05sh-451-09-2024)