Devan v Pendakwa Raya

Applicant(s): Devan

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The applicant pleaded guilty in the High Court to three charges of drug trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, punishable under Section 39B(2) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with 12 strokes of whipping for each charge.
• The 14-day period for filing a Notice of Appeal under Section 51(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 expired on 13 August 2025, but the applicant only filed the present application for extension of time on 26 November 2025, resulting in a delay of 105 days.
• The applicant attributed the delay to a misunderstanding with prison authorities, claiming he believed the prison would file the appeal while the prison believed his intended lawyer would do so, and that no proactive steps were taken until his lawyer's first visit on 9 October 2025.

• Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under Section 56 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to extend time for filing the Notice of Appeal out of the statutory 14-day period.
• Whether the applicant had shown "strong grounds or substantial reasons" to justify the inordinate 105-day delay, in line with established principles.
• Whether there was merit in the intended appeal, given the unequivocal guilty plea and the lawfulness of the sentence imposed, as a relevant factor in exercising the Court's discretion.

• The Court held that a mere "misunderstanding" between the applicant and prison authorities was a trivial and unreasonable excuse; once the applicant indicated he would engage his own counsel, the prison's statutory duty under Section 54 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ceased, shifting full responsibility onto the applicant and his counsel to comply with the filing timeline.
• The Court found the 105-day delay to be inordinate, and that neither the applicant nor his counsel showed diligence or urgency, including a further delay in filing even after confirming with the Court Registry on 3 November 2025 that no appeal had been filed.
• The Court further found no merit in the intended appeal, as the guilty plea was clear, voluntary and unequivocal, and the sentence was lawful and properly imposed under Section 39B(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.