1. ) ADAM FOONG BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) LEONG WAI KONG 3. ) NGUYEN THI KIM NGAN

1. ) ADAM FOONG BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) LEONG WAI KONG 3. ) NGUYEN THI KIM NGAN

The prosecution failed to prove exclusive custody or control of the place where the drugs were concealed and did not eliminate the reasonable possibility that another person connected to bedroom 3 owned the drug paraphernalia; because possession and knowledge were not established the statutory presumption of trafficking could not be invoked and a prima facie case was not made, warranting discharge and acquittal of the accused without calling them to enter their defence.

Citation
AA-45A-14-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Adam Foong bin Abdullah; Accused: Leong Wai Kong; Accused: Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 April 2026
Case Number
AA-45A-14-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 / Determination on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution (discharge and Acquittal)
Outcome
Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 discharged and acquitted; not called to enter their defence.
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Constructive Possession, Presumption of Knowledge (s.37), Investigation Adequacy, Prima Facie Threshold, Common Intention S.34 Penal Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Possession Trafficking Constructive Possession Presumption of Knowledge (s.37) Investigation Adequacy +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Adam Foong bin Abdullah

Accused

Leong Wai Kong

Accused

Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 / Determination on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution (discharge and Acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved custody or exclusive control of premises where drugs were found
  2. 2 Whether knowledge of the drugs could be inferred against the accused
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) can be invoked

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove exclusive custody or control of the place where the drugs were concealed and did not eliminate the reasonable possibility that another person connected to bedroom 3 owned the drug paraphernalia; because possession and knowledge were not established the statutory presumption of trafficking could not be invoked and a prima facie case was not made, warranting discharge and acquittal of the accused without calling them to enter their defence.

Court Disposition

Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 discharged and acquitted; not called to enter their defence.

Orders

  • Accused Nos.1–3 are discharged and acquitted without being called to enter their defence.