Mugunthan a/l Manickam v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Mugunthan A/L Manickam

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YAA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah
• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

• The appellant initially filed three criminal appeals against convictions and sentences for drug-related offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952).
• Two appeals were subsequently withdrawn as the appellant had completed the sentences, leaving only the appeal against conviction and sentence for trafficking 845 grams of Cannabis under Section 39B(1)(a) DDA 1952.
• The prosecution's case established that drugs were found on the appellant's person and in a car registered in his name, which he directed the police to, and which also contained his personal identification documents.

• Whether the High Court erred in finding that the prosecution had proven the elements of control, possession, and knowledge of the dangerous drugs by the appellant.
• Whether the High Court correctly assessed the appellant's defence of "innocent carrier" and the applicability of the doctrine of willful blindness.
• Whether the absence of forensic evidence (fingerprints) and the prosecution's failure to call certain witnesses created reasonable doubt or warranted an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.

• The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence, affirming the High Court's decision.
• The Court found that there was clear evidence establishing the appellant's custody, control, and knowledge of the drugs, which the appellant failed to rebut on a balance of probabilities under Section 37(d) DDA 1952.
• The Court held that the absence of fingerprint evidence was not fatal to the prosecution's case given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, and that the failure to call the named witness did not warrant an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 as he was not a material witness to the discovery of drugs in the car.