Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference (s.114 evidence act)

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2026

SIN YAP EXCAVATING & BUILDING WORKS 1. ) TAN KIM TIONG 2. ) TAN CHERK YIK

Citation

JA-12BNCC-12-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-12-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court on Pasir Raja because the agreement was validly executed in counterpart and exchanged by email (primary evidence), the trial judge permissibly admitted the agreement under s.73A discretion, and the site manager's direct, audiovisual-assessed evidence that Plaintif performed and completed the works was credible such that the finding of completion was not plainly wrong; the Ayer Hitam claim failed because the alleged oral contract and quantum meruit were not pleaded and therefore could not be adjudicated. Costs for the appeals were fixed at RM8,000 each…
11 Nov 2025

MOHAMED AFNI BIN AHMAD

Citation

KA-46A-1-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-46A-1-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because critical elements of possession were not proved beyond reasonable doubt given material inconsistencies and implausibilities in police testimony, the prosecution's failure to call or offer the informer where he likely acted beyond a mere informant, and inadequate investigative steps (absence of mobile phone seizure and no forensic linkage between P18 and accused); accordingly the accused is acquitted.
3 Jun 2025

1. ) MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA 2. ) CHE HASMIDI BIN CHE HASSAN

Citation

BA-45A-148-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-148-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either accused had exclusive control, custody and knowledge of the seized drugs; defence successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under s.37(d) ADB; material evidential gaps (uncertain seizure location, broken chain of custody, failure to produce phones/CCTV/clothing and missing police reports, contradictory witness accounts and negative fingerprint results) created reasonable doubt; therefore accused were acquitted of the specified charges.
29 Nov 2024

PRABAH A/P OPAKAN

Citation

AC-83-365-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AC-83-365-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved all essential ingredients of s.420 by credible witness testimony corroborated by transaction images and bank statements showing funds were credited to accused's account on inducement that accused would secure PERKESO ILAT pension; defence explanations were inconsistent and unproven and did not raise reasonable doubt, therefore accused convicted on both counts and sentenced.
11 Sept 2024

1. ) YAGAMBARAM CHETTIAR A/L KAPOORAM 2. ) MUTHUBAL LATHA 3. ) LOGESWARAN A/L YAGAMBARAM CHETTIAR

Citation

AA-45A-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-45A-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on maximum evaluation because it did not prove exclusive possession or control, knowledge of the drugs by the accused, or joint intent under s.34; investigative contradictions and failure to exclude other persons with access (uninvestigated vehicles, unrecorded witnesses, inconsistent seizure evidence) rendered the statutory presumptions rebutted or insufficient to warrant calling the accused to enter defence. Therefore accused discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution.
24 Feb 2023

SATHAN A/L SEKAR [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-276-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-276-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found the prosecution proved a negotiated sale (trafficking) by credible agent provocateur witnesses, the exhibits' chain of custody was continuous and identified by markings and witness testimony so discrepancies in times were immaterial, telephone records were only corroborative not material for adverse inference, the conduct of all four accused established common intention under s.34, judicial interventions under s.165 did not prejudice the accused, s.182A requirements were substantively met, and therefore convictions for trafficking and mandatory death sentences under s.39B(1)(a…
30 Jun 2022

Poobalan A/l Rajah [ ]

Citation

BA-41S-11-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-41S-11-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Magistrate did not commit reversible error: the burden of proof remained on the prosecution, the failure to call certain witnesses did not render the prosecution case unsafe given other credible evidence and exhibits, adverse inference under s.114(g) was not mandatory, defence did not raise reasonable doubt, and convictions and concurrent sentences were accordingly affirmed.
2 Jan 2022

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. CHEN KOONG SANG 2. FRANCIS NG

Citation

JB-42LB-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42LB-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court erred in invoking an adverse inference for failure to call the laboratory assistant and in rejecting PW7’s evidence; evidence established physical control and knowledge of the drugs by the respondents, a prima facie case was made out on all charges and the case was remitted to the Sessions Court for the accused to enter defence.
8 Jan 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Timbalan Pendakwaraya Edmund Chin Chong Yan

Citation

BL-83-1492-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BL-83-1492-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although prosecution proved payment and false representation, reasonable doubt remained as to accused's knowledge and dishonest intention because prosecution failed to call the material witness Muhamad Aslan to disprove the defence that an agent (PW4) obtained the fake permit; that doubt required acquittal.