Ramachandran A/L Verasamy & Anor v Public Prosecutor

Federal Court · · Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Ramachandran A/L Verasamy & Anor v Public Prosecutor
CourtFederal Court
Judgment Date5 May 2026
Date Uploaded13 May 2026
Legal TopicsCriminal Law, Criminal Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s):

  • Ramachandran A/L Verasamy
  • Kelana Bin Yunus

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

Bench
  • YAA Datuk Seri Panglima Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh
  • YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah
  • YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar
Facts & Background
  • Two appellants were convicted by the High Court for two offences under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
  • Police found a large quantity of drugs and manufacturing equipment in a condominium unit where both appellants were arrested.
  • The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, affirming the High Court's conviction and sentence.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the charges were flawed due to the alleged omission of Section 34 of the Penal Code.
  • Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for failing to call material witnesses.
  • Whether the appellants were prejudiced by the alleged flagrant incompetency of their trial counsel.
Decision
  • The Federal Court held that Section 34 of the Penal Code was properly incorporated in the charges, rendering them valid.
  • The Court found that common intention was established, as both appellants jointly entered the premises and participated in the criminal enterprise, making them equally culpable.
  • The appeal was dismissed as the Court found no grounds to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution or to deem the trial counsel's conduct as flagrantly incompetent.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!