MOHD ZULFADLI BIN NAYAN

MOHD ZULFADLI BIN NAYAN

The appeal was dismissed because the amended charge was not defective; the prosecution established a prima facie case on credible eyewitness evidence; the statutory presumption in section 50(3) MACC Act 2009 was properly invoked after primary facts were proved and was not rebutted on balance of probabilities; s52(1)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JA-42R-2-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Zulfadli bin Nayan; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Case Number
JA-42R-2-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Corruption (section 165 Penal Code), Statutory Presumption (section 50(3) MACC Act 2009), Accomplice Evidence and S52 MACC Act 2009, Alibi and S402 a CPC, Charge Sufficiency and Particulars, Section 162 CPC Rights Upon Amendment, Appellate Standard for Conviction and Sentence, Use of Telecommunications Evidence (cdrs)
Criminal Law Anti‑corruption Law Evidence Procedure Sentencing Corruption (section 165 Penal Code) Statutory Presumption (section 50(3) MACC Act 2009) Accomplice Evidence and S52 MACC Act 2009 +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Zulfadli bin Nayan

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge was defective
  2. 2 Whether s162 CPC rights were explained after amendment
  3. 3 Whether prosecution made out a prima facie case under s165 Penal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the amended charge was not defective; the prosecution established a prima facie case on credible eyewitness evidence; the statutory presumption in section 50(3) MACC Act 2009 was properly invoked after primary facts were proved and was not rebutted on balance of probabilities; s52(1) MACC Act 2009 excludes treating the key witnesses as accomplices requiring corroboration; the alibi was internally inconsistent, not disclosed timely and treated as an afterthought; and the twenty‑month sentence was within lawful discretionary range and not manifestly excessive given public‑interest deterrence and aggravating factors.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed