Pandithan a/l Thangarajoo v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Pandithan A/L Thangarajoo

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz

• The appellant was charged with three drug-related offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952): two counts of trafficking (s. 39B(1)(a)) and one count of possession (s. 12(2) punishable under s. 39A(2)).
• The High Court found the appellant guilty on all three charges, imposing sentences including life imprisonment and caning for trafficking, and 8 years imprisonment with caning for possession, with sentences running concurrently.
• The charges arose from two incidents on the same day: the first involved drugs found in a sling bag worn by the appellant in a car, and the second involved drugs and a pistol found in a car in a locked store, to which the appellant led the police.

• Whether the High Court erred in failing to draw an adverse inference under s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 due to the prosecution's failure to call a co-arrestee as a witness.
• Whether the High Court erred in admitting the appellant's conduct under s. 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 to prove possession and control of the drugs found in the store, and whether the possibility of access by others was sufficiently excluded.
• Whether the High Court erred by failing to explicitly indicate at the close of the prosecution's case which statutory presumptions, particularly s. 37(d) of the DDA 1952, were being applied.

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence, affirming the High Court's decision on all three charges.
• The Court held that no adverse inference under s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 could be drawn as there was no withholding or suppression of material evidence, and the prosecution's case was sufficiently proven by other witnesses.
• The Court found that the appellant's conduct, including leading the police to the hidden drugs and having sole control over the car and the locked store, was admissible under s. 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 and established possession and knowledge.
• The Court ruled that the High Court's omission to explicitly state the application of s. 37(d) DDA 1952 at the prima facie stage did not occasion a failure of justice, as the appellant was not prejudiced and had ample opportunity to present a defence.