Sharonpal Singh
About Sharonpal Singh
Sharonpal Singh appears as counsel of record in 5 reported Malaysia judgments (2025). These were heard before MYCOA (5).
On the court record
Sharonpal Singh's reported practice, on this record, is dedicated criminal appellate defence, appearing in the Court of Appeal for accused persons as the appellant in a group of related drug-trafficking appeals heard together.
Each appeal is against conviction and sentence for an offence under section 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, together with a charge under section 9(1) of the Poisons Act 1952. The appeals raise a connected set of evidential questions that go to the heart of a trafficking prosecution: whether the elements of possession and knowledge were proved, and whether preparatory acts short of the completed act amount to trafficking within the statutory definition.
A recurring point of principle across the appeals concerns the adverse-inference presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 — specifically whether it can be drawn only where there has been a withholding or suppression of evidence, and not merely because the prosecution failed to obtain particular evidence in the first place. The appeals also engaged the consequences of a failure to cross-examine on a material matter, and how that failure bears on the weight of the competing accounts.
Because these matters were argued as a linked group, they show a counsel working a single, tightly defined body of law — the elements of trafficking under section 39B(1)(c), the reach of the section 114(g) presumption, and the proper approach to gaps in the prosecution's evidence — across several accused at once. The practice on this record is specialised, appellate drug-defence work in the Court of Appeal, directed at testing whether the prosecution truly proved possession, knowledge and trafficking, rather than relying on inference and untested assertion. Argued as a single coordinated set, the appeals let one line of defence — that the statutory presumptions and adverse inferences cannot substitute for actual proof of possession and knowledge — be pressed consistently across every accused, which is the through-line of the practice on this record.
How many cases has Sharonpal Singh appeared in?
Sharonpal Singh appears as counsel of record in 5 reported Malaysia judgments (2025).
Which courts does Sharonpal Singh appear in?
Sharonpal Singh appears before MYCOA (5).
What does Sharonpal Singh's record show him doing?
Criminal appellate defence in the Court of Appeal, acting for accused persons as the appellant in a group of related appeals against conviction and sentence for drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, with related charges under section 9(1) of the Poisons Act 1952.
What evidential questions do the appeals raise?
Whether the elements of possession and knowledge were proved, whether preparatory acts amount to trafficking within the statutory definition, and whether the adverse-inference presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 can be drawn only where evidence was withheld or suppressed rather than merely not obtained.
How does the section 114(g) point matter to the defence?
Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 allows a court to presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the party withholding it. The appeals argued that the presumption applies only to a genuine withholding or suppression of evidence, not to a mere failure by the prosecution to obtain evidence, which limits how far the prosecution's gaps can be turned against the accused.