Bashkeran a/l Salliah v Pendakwa Raya

Court of Appeal · · Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Bashkeran a/l Salliah v Pendakwa Raya
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date13 February 2026
Date Uploaded25 February 2026
Legal TopicsCriminal Law, Criminal Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s): Bashkeran A/L Salliah

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

Bench
  • YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
  • YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
  • YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid
Facts & Background
  • The appellant was charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 after being arrested near a convenience store with a brown envelope containing 182 grams of methamphetamine.
  • The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of the raiding officer who observed the appellant holding the envelope, which subsequently fell when the appellant tripped while attempting to flee.
  • The appellant’s defense was that he was a courier and that the drugs were actually discovered by the police in the boot of a borrowed car, rather than in his physical possession.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the defense as an "afterthought" due to the appellant’s failure to cross-examine prosecution witnesses on key defense points and the two-year delay in filing a police report.
  • Whether the prosecution’s failure to call or offer certain witnesses (a recording officer and other store employees) and the non-production of CCTV footage triggered an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
  • Whether the High Court correctly applied the law regarding "red-handed" possession and the statutory presumption of trafficking.
Decision
  • The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge’s findings on witness credibility were sound and that the appellant’s delayed police report was rightly dismissed as a self-serving afterthought.
  • The Court held that Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 did not apply because the uncalled witnesses were not material to the unfolding of the narrative and the CCTV footage was merely corroborative, not essential for proving identity or the act of possession.
  • The Court concluded that the prosecution had proven the elements of possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt through credible direct evidence, and the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!