MOHD AL HAFIS BIN JAMALUDIN

MOHD AL HAFIS BIN JAMALUDIN

After maximum evaluation the prosecution evidence was insufficient and suffered material inconsistencies and omissions (notably lack of proof accused overtook on opposing lane and complainant's failure to confirm use of signal); reasonable inferences favoured the accused; accordingly no prima facie case existed and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PB-86POL-3095-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: MOHD AL HAFIS BIN JAMALUDIN
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 November 2025
Case Number
PB-86POL-3095-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Traffic Offence Under Road Transport Act 1987 (quasi Criminal Summons) / Close of Prosecution — Accused Discharged and Acquitted (not Called to Answer)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; not called to enter defence.
Legal Topics
Prima Facie, Failure to Control Vehicle, Right of Way, Evidence Evaluation (maximum Evaluation), Signal Requirement, Contributory Negligence
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Criminal Procedure Prima Facie Failure to Control Vehicle Right of Way Evidence Evaluation (maximum Evaluation) Signal Requirement +1 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecutor

MOHD AL HAFIS BIN JAMALUDIN

Accused

Procedural Posture

Traffic Offence Under Road Transport Act 1987 (quasi Criminal Summons) / Close of Prosecution — Accused Discharged and Acquitted (not Called to Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case that the accused failed to control his motorcycle contrary to Rule 10 Road Traffic Rules 1959 and s119(2) read with s128(1) Road Transport Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the complainant/driver gave proper signal and whether omissions/inconsistencies in evidence undermine the prosecution case
  3. 3 Whether alternative inferences favour the accused such that calling the accused to answer is unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

After maximum evaluation the prosecution evidence was insufficient and suffered material inconsistencies and omissions (notably lack of proof accused overtook on opposing lane and complainant's failure to confirm use of signal); reasonable inferences favoured the accused; accordingly no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to answer.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; not called to enter defence.

Orders

  • Accused released and acquitted on the charge