Chu Wee Kong v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Chu Wee Kong

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was apprehended by police during a surveillance operation after he attempted to flee by ramming his vehicle into police cars; a search of his person and the front passenger seat of his vehicle revealed two separate stashes of methamphetamine.
• The prosecution relied on the testimony of the raiding officer and the discovery of the appellant’s identification documents inside the bag containing the drugs to establish possession and knowledge.
• The defense contended that the drugs were planted, alleging that the raiding officer had attempted to extort RM50,000 and that the actual seizure occurred at a different location during a series of subsequent raids conducted later that morning.

• Whether the 12-hour delay in lodging the police report and the conduct of three subsequent raids at different locations created a reasonable doubt regarding the site of the original seizure and the credibility of the raiding officer.
• Whether the multiple raids constituted the "same transaction" under the law, requiring the Court to evaluate the events holistically to support the appellant's narrative of police fabrication and extortion.
• Whether the prosecution’s failure to produce CCTV recordings from one of the raid locations warranted an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility was sound and that the delay in lodging the police report was reasonably explained by the ongoing nature of the multi-location police operation.
• The Court held that the "same transaction" principle, as discussed in the context of Section 170(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, was irrelevant to this case as it pertains to the joinder of charges and trials rather than the factual merits of a single-accused trial.
• The Court ruled that the appellant was bound by the testimony of the police officers he called as defense witnesses, who contradicted his claims of extortion, and reiterated that allegations of police misconduct must be supported by cogent evidence rather than bare denials.