MEGALA NATHAN A/L MARIAPPAN v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

n-09h-224-06-2022 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 27 January 2025 • N-09(H)-224-06/2022 • 11 min read

8 cases cited (0 SG, 8 foreign)

Catchwords

Offence and Sentence: Section 12(2) DDA 1952, punishable under Section 39A(2) – 4 years' imprisonment, 4 strokes of whipping. Appeal Issue: Magistrate did not explicitly state presumption at the end of the prosecution’s case. Trial Judge’s Duty: Section 180 CPC – assess evidence, determine prima facie case, no requirement to state reasons or presumptions. Presumption of Possession: Magistrate invoked presumption but mentioned it only in final decision – legally permissible. Appellate Decision: No appealable error, conviction upheld, appeal dismissed. Conclusion: No appealable errors that warrant our appellate intervention - the conviction against the appellant is safe - appeal is therefore dismissed.

Practice Areas

Offence and Sentence: Section 12(2) DDA 1952, punishable under Section 39A(2) Appeal Issue: Magistrate did not explicitly state presumption at the end of the prosecution’s case. Trial Judge’s Duty: Section 180 CPC Presumption of Possession: Magistrate invoked presumption but mentioned it only in final decision Appellate Decision: No appealable error, conviction upheld, appeal dismissed. Conclusion: No appealable errors that warrant our appellate intervention

Judges (3)

Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim Coram Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan Delivered Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali Coram

Counsel (6)

Paul, Amy Chong & Associates Firm Amy Chong Counsel Appellant Paul Krishnaraja Selladurai Counsel Appellant Syarifah Khairiah binti Syed Akmal Counsel Respondent Tengku Shahrizam bin Tuan Lah Counsel Respondent Virochean Stephan Soosai Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Megala Nathan a/l Mariappan Appellant

Case Significance

MEGALA NATHAN A/L MARIAPPAN v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated January 27, 2025 (citation: n-09h-224-06-2022). <p>Megalanathan appealed his conviction for possession of 16.13 grams of methamphetamine, arguing the Magistrate failed to explicitly state the presumption at the end of the prosecution's case. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the Magistrate was not required to inform the accused about the invocation of the presumption.</p> The panel comprised Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim, Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan and Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali, with Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Amy Chong (counsel for appellant), Paul Krishnaraja Selladurai (counsel for appellant), Syarifah Khairiah binti Syed Akmal (counsel for respondent), Tengku Shahrizam bin Tuan Lah (counsel for respondent), Virochean Stephan Soosai (counsel for appellant).

Key issues: Offence and Sentence: Section 12(2) DDA 1952, punishable under Section 39A(2) – 4 years' imprisonment, 4 strokes of whipping..

Summary

Megalanathan appealed his conviction for possession of 16.13 grams of methamphetamine, arguing the Magistrate failed to explicitly state the presumption at the end of the prosecution's case. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the Magistrate was not required to inform the accused about the invocation of the presumption.

What was the outcome of MEGALA NATHAN A/L MARIAPPAN v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]?

<p>Megalanathan appealed his conviction for possession of 16.13 grams of methamphetamine, arguing the Magistrate failed to explicitly state the presum...

Statutes Cited

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

s 50(2)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

s 180

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)

s 12(2)

Penal Code (Cap 574)

s 300

Cases Cited (8)

MY (8)

[2003] 1 CLJ 734 [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2005] 6 AMR 203 [2015] 7 CLJ 897 [2021] MLJU 2272 [2022] 2 CLJ 396 [2022] 5 CLJ 659 [2024] 4 CLJ 823