Man faces gallows over 2kg drug haul
The accused, Muhammad Hazyzy Mohd Shah, nodded to indicate he understood the charges when they were read out before magistrate Arun Noval Dass.
No plea was recorded as the case falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court.
According to the two charges, he is accused of trafficking 1,027g of cannabis and 450g of heroin at a house in Bandar Putera Indah, Tongkang Pechah, at 1.45am on July 1.
Both charges are framed under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, punishable under Section 39B(2) of the same Act, which carries the mandatory death penalty or life imprisonment, along with no fewer than 12 strokes of the cane if the death sentence is not imposed.
Deputy public prosecutor Firdaus Ruslan prosecuted, while Musfira Mohd Fahmi appeared for the defence.
The prosecution earlier requested a new mention date to allow time for the chemistry report. No bail was offered.
The court fixed Sept 10 for mention pending the completion of the analysis.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
9 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Court reserves decision on Indira Gandhi's appeal against ex-IGP, govt
The High Court dismissed M Indira Gandhi's lawsuit last year, ruling that the police had properly performed their duty to try and locate her former husband and her daughter. (Bernama pic) PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on M Indira Gandhi's appeal in her suit against former inspector-general of police Abdul Hamid Bador and the government for allegedly failing to arrest her former husband and return her daughter, who was abducted by him in 2008. A three-member panel, chaired by Justice Zaini Mazlan, said the court needed time to deliberate on submissions from Indira's lawyers and the Attorney-General's Chambers, which represents the police and the government. The court set Aug 25 for case management. Indira's lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, had earlier argued that the police failed to enforce the committal warrant according to the law. He said they did not file any affidavits updating the court on their efforts to find K Pathmanathan, who converted to Islam and took the name Riduan Abdullah. 'It was only in 2020, after we (current lawyers) took over, that we wrote to the court to ask them for updates,' he said. Justice Radzi Abdul Hamid, who also sat on the panel with Justice Faizah Jamaludin, questioned if Indira had standing to bring the claim, as contempt is an administrative matter between the court and Riduan. He said the court sympathises with Indira, but the proceeding may not bring her daughter, Prasana Diksa, back. 'The contempt was due to his (Riduan's) action (in not handing over Prasana),' Radzi said. Rajesh maintained that Indira has indirect rights relating to Prasana's whereabouts, justifying her claim. Senior federal counsel Nur Ezdiani Roleb said Riduan is on the police's wanted list and will be arrested if found. Ezdiani said the High Court only ordered the police to file progress affidavits after the current lawyers took over in 2020. She contended that the police owe no duty of care to Indira beyond executing the committal order. Last year, the High Court dismissed Indira's lawsuit, ruling that the police had properly performed their duty, and that it found no bad faith. The court also noted ongoing investigations to locate Riduan. In her suit filed in 2020, Indira, 49, alleged that Hamid deliberately and negligently disregarded a mandamus order issued by the Federal Court in failing to investigate or take appropriate action to return Prasana, now 16, to her. She claimed that Hamid and the government had a role to play in making decisions or ordering the police to execute the committal warrant against Riduan as ordered by the Federal Court on April 29, 2016. The mother of three contended that the defendants' behaviour directly caused her continued separation from her youngest daughter until today, and that their behaviour also caused Riduan to flee. Indira sought RM100 million in general, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as a declaration that Hamid had committed tort of nonfeasance in public office. She said the government was also vicariously liable for the tort of nonfeasance committed by the police.
New Straits Times
10 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Court reserves ruling in Indira Gandhi's RM100mil missing daughter suit
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment on kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi's appeal to reinstate her RM100 million lawsuit against the police and government over their alleged failure to locate her daughter, Prasana Diksa. A three-member Court of Appeal panel, chaired by Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan made the decision after hearing lengthy submissions from both parties today. Zaini said the court needed time to deliberate on the arguments and examine the records before delivering its decision. Other members of the bench were Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid. The court also fixed Aug 25 for the next case management. On June 28 last year, the High Court dismissed Indira's suit, saying that the plaintiff must prove malice or bad faith to establish the tort of nonfeasance. Indira filed the lawsuit on Oct 28, 2020, naming former inspector-general of police Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador, the police, Home Ministry, and the government as defendants. Indira's daughter, Prasana Diksa, was taken by her ex-husband, K. Pathmanathan, 15 years ago. Pathmanathan is reported to have taken Prasana away after unilaterally converting all three of their children to Islam in 2009. Prasana was 11 months old at the time.
The Star
10 hours ago
- The Star
Court of Appeal defers decision on Indira Gandhi's lawsuit against IGP
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has postponed its decision in the RM100mil lawsuit filed by kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and three others, concerning alleged inaction against her ex-husband who abducted her daughter Prasana Diksa. Justice Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, heading a three-judge panel, stated that the court needs additional time to review the submissions due to the nature of the case. "We will fix a date for a decision later," he said after hearing submissions on Monday (Aug 11). Justices Faizah Jamaludin and Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid also sat on the bench. Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan, representing Indira, argued that her ex-husband, K. Pathmanathan, has not complied with a High Court mandamus order to return Prasana Diksa to Indira, who has custody of the child. He questioned the use of the now-defunct Special Task Force on Organised Crime (Stafoc) to locate Pathmanathan, suggesting it was inappropriate for the situation. Rajesh highlighted records indicating Pathmanathan owned several vehicles in Malaysia and had paid summons for speeding in 2020, implying police inaction despite court orders. Senior Federal Counsel Nur Ezdiani Roleb contended that the police had fulfilled their duties, with the IGP making public appeals for assistance in locating Pathmanathan, whose name is on the police wanted list. She argued that 'duty of care' does not apply to Indira's case as she was not in police custody, and the respondents were obliged only to adhere to the court's mandamus order. The court has scheduled Aug 25 for case management to set a decision date. Indira is appealing a High Court decision from June 28 last year, which dismissed her lawsuit against the IGP, the police, the Home Ministry, and the government. The High Court had ruled that police used all available resources to locate Pathmanathan, also known as Muhammad Riduan. Indira's lawsuit, filed on Oct 28, 2020, claims the IGP deliberately disregarded the Federal Court's mandamus order, failing to take appropriate action to return Prasana Diksa. She asserts that the defendants' actions have caused her prolonged separation from her daughter. In 2009, Pathmanathan unilaterally converted his three children to Islam and obtained custody from the Syariah Court. In 2016, the Federal Court affirmed a High Court mandamus order to apprehend Pathmanathan and return Prasana Diksa. The apex court ruled in 2018 that the unilateral conversion was null and void, and the Ipoh High Court granted full custody to Indira in 2010. Prasana Diksa was 11 months old when taken and turns 17 this year. Indira's two other children were returned to her in 2010.
