LINGESWARAN A/L AMBALAKHAN v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Case Significance

Illustrates the correct and confined scope of the parol evidence rule under sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 in a criminal trial, and confirms that a missing First Information Report is not in itself a ground to dismiss a trafficking prosecution where there is direct evidence of carrying.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya concerns an appeal against a conviction for drug trafficking. The appellant had been charged that, on 7 September 2022 at a roadside in Sungai Petani, in the Kuala Muda district of Kedah, he trafficked dangerous drugs weighing 43.2 grams — a combination of 40.1 grams of Heroin and 3.1 grams of Monoacetylmorphines — an offence under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 39B(2). He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial; at the close of the prosecution case the High Court at Sungai Petani found a prima facie case, and after the defence he was convicted. On appeal a range of evidential complaints was pressed. These included the reach of the parol evidence rule under sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950, which the court explained is confined to documents recording the terms of contracts, grants and dispositions of property and cannot be invoked to exclude oral evidence in a criminal trial of this kind; the contention that the absence of a First Information Report was fatal, which the court rejected as not in itself a ground to dismiss a case or to prevent the police from investigating; the weighing of competing narratives and the credibility of witnesses under section 134; and the call for an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. The court also observed that there was direct evidence of the act of carrying, which is itself trafficking as defined in section 2 of the Act. Finding no material substance in the complaints, the panel unanimously held the conviction safe, dismissed the appeal against conviction and affirmed the sentence. The judgment is a useful illustration of the correct scope of the parol evidence rule and of the treatment of a missing First Information Report in a trafficking appeal.