1. ) RAMACHANDRAN A/L VERASAMY 2. ) KELANA BIN YUNUS v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Confirms, in the companion trafficking appeal heard with its twin, that a conviction under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 will stand where the appellants demonstrate no appealable error — the challenges to possession, the section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 presumption, third-party DNA, and defence-counsel conduct all being rejected and the conviction found safe.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya, delivered in a judgment by Noorin binti Badaruddin JCA (sitting with Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim and Azman Abdullah JJCA), is the companion appeal in a joint prosecution for drug trafficking, registered as one of two appeals (594 and 595) heard and decided together. The two appellants had faced separate charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), the charges bearing different registration numbers but tried together at the Penang High Court by consent of prosecution and defence, where both were convicted and sentenced. This appeal concerns the charge registered under this case number within that consolidated proceeding.

On appeal the appellants advanced several grounds attacking the safety of the convictions, including whether the prosecution had established the first appellant's possession and knowledge of the drugs (the second appellant having testified that the first appellant did not reside at the premises), whether the trial judge should have invoked the adverse presumption in seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 (section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950) for failure to call a material witness, the presence of a third party's DNA in the house where the offence was said to have occurred, and a complaint that the appellants had been prejudiced by the conduct of their trial counsel. The Court of Appeal, sitting unanimously, held that there was no appealable error by the trial judge warranting appellate intervention and no reason to disturb the findings on any issue raised. The appellants had failed to raise a reasonable doubt over the prosecution case, the conviction was safe, and the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court. The judgment reinforces the narrow scope for appellate interference with a trafficking conviction founded on concurrent factual findings.