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

k-05sh-372-08-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 22 May 2025 • K-05(SH)-372-08/2024 • 55 min read
52 cases cited (1 SG, 51 foreign)

Catchwords

Parole Evidence Rule - Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 - limited to document relating to the terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property mutually agreed upon by the parties - prevent a party to vary, add to or contract those agreed terms using parole (oral) evidence - mere absence of the First Information Report is not in itself a valid ground to dismiss a case or to prevent the police from investigating - Competing Narratives - section 134 of the Evidence Act 1950 - Credibility of the Witnesses - section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 - adverse inference - subsequent behaviour or conduct the accused – section 8 and 14 of the Evidence Act 1950 - non-production of pocket diary did not diminish the weight and credibility of the of witness - fingerprint lifting and DNA evidential status is merely of corroborative value - evidence against the accused was overwhelming and the accused identity was never in doubt - Failure to Appreciate the Defence – trial judge not misdirected in law and in fact - Improper Use of Presumption - section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 or section 37(da) of the said Act - whether the learned trial judge erred in invoking the presumption under section 37(da) in respect of the charge against the accused? - no appealable errors on the part of the trial judge when invoked the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) - direct evidence of the act of ‘carrying’ clearly defined as trafficking under section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Practice Areas

Parole Evidence Rule

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered Noorin binti Badaruddin Coram

Counsel (4)

Grace S. Nathan Firm Grace Subathirai Nathan Counsel Appellant Sivananthan a/l Nithyanantham Counsel Appellant Zander Lim Wai Keong Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Lingeswaran a/l Ambalakhan Appellant

Case Significance

LINGESWARAN A/L AMBALAKHAN v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jab... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated May 22, 2025 (citation: k-05sh-372-08-2024). <p>The appellant was convicted of trafficking 43.2g of heroin and monoacetylmorphines found on his person at a roadside in Sungai Petani and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's findings on actual possession, credibility of prosecution witnesses, proper invocation of the trafficking presumption under Section 37(da), and that the absence of a First Information Report or pocket diary did not The panel comprised Azman bin Abdullah, Azmi bin Ariffin and Noorin binti Badaruddin, with Azmi bin Ariffin delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Grace Subathirai Nathan (counsel for appellant), Sivananthan a/l Nithyanantham (counsel for appellant), Zander Lim Wai Keong (prosecution counsel).

Summary

The appellant was convicted of trafficking 43.2g of heroin and monoacetylmorphines found on his person at a roadside in Sungai Petani and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's findings on actual possession, credibility of prosecution witnesses, proper invocation of the trafficking presumption under Section 37(da), and that the absence of a First Information Report or pocket diary did not diminish the overwhelming evidence.

What was the outcome of LINGESWARAN A/L AMBALAKHAN v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jab...?

<p>The appellant was convicted of trafficking 43.2g of heroin and monoacetylmorphines found on his person at a roadside in Sungai Petani and sentenced...

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
s 2 s 37(d)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
s 114(g) s 134 s 92

Cases Cited (52)

SG (1)
[2003] SGHC 226
UK (1)
[1974] 2 All ER 840
MY (50)
[1956] 1 MLJ 28 [1956] 22 MLJ 237 [1967] 1 MLJ 221 [1969] MLRA 382 [1977] 1 MLJ 180 [1978] 1 MLJ 240 [1984] 2 MLJ 165 [1987] 1 CLJ 250 [1987] 1 MLJ 492 [1997] 1 CLJ 233 [1997] 3 CLJ 421 [1997] 4 MLJ 329 [1998] 2 CLJ 170 [1998] 2 MLJ 273 [2001] 1 CLJ 381 [2003] 2 CLJ 19 [2003] 2 MLJ 97 [2003] 4 CLJ 409 [2004] 4 CLJ 309 [2004] 4 CLJ 551 [2004] 4 MLJ 489 [2005] 1 CLJ 713 [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2007] 3 CLJ 281 [2007] 4 CLJ 337 [2008] 2 CLJ 284 [2008] 2 MLJ 87 [2008] 5 CLJ 108 [2009] 1 CLJ 717 [2009] 3 CLJ 236 [2009] 3 CLJ 430 [2009] 6 CLJ 626 [2009] 6 MLJ 1 [2010] 3 CLJ 377 [2010] 3 MLJ 509 [2011] 1 CLJ 273 [2011] 5 CLJ 630 [2012] 4 MLJ 149 [2013] 3 MLJ 630 [2013] 4 CLJ 21 [2013] 4 MLJ 693 [2014] 7 CLJ 76 [2015] 8 CLJ 839 [2017] 1 CLJ 575 [2017] 5 CLJ 58 [2018] MLJU 98 [2019] 4 MLJ 651 [2020] 2 CLJ 28 [2022] 5 MLJ 950