Navindrahkumar a/l Asok Kumar & Anor v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Navindrahkumar A/L Asok Kumar

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The two appellants were jointly charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, for trafficking 153.3 grams of heroin.
• The High Court convicted both appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment (30 years) and 12 strokes of the cane.
• The case stemmed from a police sting operation where an agent provocateur negotiated the purchase of heroin from the first appellant, with the second appellant delivering the drugs at a public location.

• Whether the prosecution's failure to call certain material witnesses or adduce specific documentary evidence (CCTV, phone logs, marked money) created a material gap or warranted an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
• Whether the prosecution had proven the elements of trafficking through "negotiated sale" and common intention under Section 34 of the Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether the second appellant's defence of "innocent carrier" was sustainable given the evidence of his active involvement in the drug transaction.

• The Court dismissed both appeals against conviction, finding no merit to intervene with the High Court's decision.
• The Court held that the direct and credible evidence of the agent provocateurs was sufficient, and the absence of other witnesses or corroborative documentary evidence did not create a material gap or warrant an adverse inference.
• It was affirmed that in cases of direct trafficking via "negotiated sale" to an agent provocateur, the prosecution need not prove separate elements of possession, knowledge, or control. Common intention was inferred from the pre-arranged plan and conduct of the appellants.
• The second appellant's "innocent carrier" defence was rejected as the evidence showed his active role in displaying the drugs. The sentences imposed were upheld, as the first appellant's appeal against sentence was also dismissed, and the second appellant did not appeal against sentence.