Tan Cheng Kit v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Tan Cheng Kit

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz

• The appellant was charged with five offences, including drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952) and possession of dangerous drugs and scheduled poisons under section 12(2) DDA 1952 and sections 9(1) and 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952.
• The High Court found the appellant guilty on all charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment and caning for trafficking, and concurrent imprisonment terms for the possession offences.
• The appellant appealed against the conviction for drug trafficking only, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove custody, control, and knowledge of the drugs.

• Whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had custody, control, and knowledge of the dangerous drugs and poisons found at the premises.
• Whether the appellant's defence, which denied ownership and knowledge of the drugs, constituted a bare denial or an afterthought that failed to raise reasonable doubt or rebut statutory presumptions.
• Whether an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 should be drawn against the prosecution for not calling a particular witness (Caroline Tan).

• The Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that there was overwhelming evidence establishing the appellant's custody, control, and knowledge, supported by the discovery of the apartment keys and access card in his possession, his act of leading the police to the apartment, and the presence of his DNA on personal items found inside.
• The Court found the appellant's defence to be a bare denial and an afterthought, inconsistent with the evidence, and insufficient to rebut the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) DDA 1952 or to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.
• The Court ruled that no adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 should be drawn against the prosecution, as the uncalled witness was not deemed essential or material to the prosecution's case, and her absence did not create a gap in the evidence.