Ravin Jay Kumar

On the court record

Engages both the substantive trafficking and possession offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the procedural rules on the running of sentences under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ravin Jay Kumar appears in this corpus in the drug jurisdiction, both on appeal and at first instance. In the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) he acted as counsel for the respondent in a matter concerning an offence under "Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 39C(1)(b) read with section 38B of the same Act. The appeal engaged questions of criminal procedure as much as substance: the commencement of a sentence of imprisonment upon a prisoner already undergoing imprisonment, addressed through sections 282(d), 292(1) and 376(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kanun Tatacara Jenayah), together with Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution. Those provisions govern how sentences are ordered to run — concurrently or consecutively — where a person is already serving a term.

In the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) he acted as counsel for the accused in a trial involving multiple accused persons charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — the trafficking offence — punishable under section 39B(2). The outcomes for the accused differed on the evidence. The court recorded, verbatim, that one accused "dengan ini dilepaskan dan dibebaskan dari pertuduhan yang dikenakan" (is hereby discharged and acquitted of the charge preferred), while another "dengan ini didapati bersalah terhadap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (is hereby found guilty of the charge under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952). That divergence illustrates how, in a joint trial, the sufficiency of proof of possession and knowledge is assessed separately for each accused.

Across the two matters, Ravin Jay Kumar's practice engages both the substantive trafficking and possession offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the procedural rules governing the running of sentences under the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellate matter is a particular reminder that, where a prisoner is already serving a term, the question of whether a fresh sentence runs concurrently or consecutively is governed by the express provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and by the constitutional framework, and is not left to be assumed.