Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference under s.114(g) evidence act

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2025

MUHAMMAD FIKRI AFFENDY BIN MOHD FUAD Awang Sabar Bin Abdul [Berniaga Diatas Nama Dan Gaya Yuriee House Of Baker's]

Citation

WA-A52NCC-5614-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-5614-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the defendant, as registered owner who authorised and permitted an agent to operate the business and accounts, is liable for the representations and misapplication of funds; the Turquand rule, agency/vicarious liability, unjust enrichment and estoppel principles require restitution of RM165,843.65 to the plaintiff and justify judgment for the plaintiff.
4 Jul 2023

KOH CHOO MENG

Citation

JB-42S-4-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42S-4-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Convictions affirmed because the totality of admissible evidence (witness testimony, CCTV recordings, material requisition forms, transport receipts, purchase bills and payment records) established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant dishonestly moved and disposed company aluminium without consent and retained proceeds; Section 414 is an independent offence that does not require prior proof of theft under Section 381; trial counsel’s conduct did not meet the threshold of flagrant incompetence amounting to a miscarriage of justice; no adverse inferences were warranted for uncalled witne…
24 Jun 2022

MUTHUKUMAR A/L M SINNATHAMBY [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-631-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-631-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt because eyewitnesses were inconsistent and admitted not seeing the weapon, the linkage between the appellant and the blade exhibits was not established (missing fingerprints, discrepancy in number of blades), material medical records and treating doctor from HTAR were not produced, and the trial judge failed to critically analyse these matters. Those cumulative defects made the convictions unsafe; accordingly convictions under s.302 and s.324 and associated sentences were quashed and th…
23 Oct 2020

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) MOHD ASWARDI BIN WAHAB [Identity Card No.: 901121115487] 2. ) MOHD NAPI BIN ABDUL RAZAK [Identity Card No.: 841121115709]

Citation

CA-87-1051-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-87-1051-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

After maximum evaluation the court found the originals IDD3 and IDD4 to be authentic and to establish that the accused possessed valid permits; prosecution's initial reliance on incomplete printouts and its failure to produce or call the issuing officers and originals at the scene permitted an adverse inference under s.114(g); consequently prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and the accused were acquitted without being called to enter their defence.
3 Mar 2020

ADIB NAFIS BIN HASSANE NAFIS

Citation

B-05(SH)-612-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-612-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is dismissed because the High Court did not err in its factual finding that the appellant had possession, custody, control and knowledge of the bag and its contents; the trial judge did not invoke s.114(g) adverse inference, and even if the prosecution failed to make Anwar available the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt (notably by failing to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and by offering inconsistent, afterthought evidence); accordingly conviction for possession under s.6 read with s.39A(2) DDA and the sentence are affirmed.
18 Dec 2019

CIMB BANK BHD GLOBAL ADVANCED BROADBAND SOLUTIONS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24FC-487-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24FC-487-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a prima facie entitlement to an order for sale under s.256 NLC by producing executed loan and charge documents, valid service of Form 16D and a certificate of indebtedness; defendant failed to rebut with admissible affidavits from persons with personal knowledge (notably the director alleging forgery), failed to discharge the burden to prove forgery on the balance of probabilities and did not negate service; internal company disputes do not constitute a cause to the contrary. Therefore the court was bound to grant the order for sale and award costs to plaintiff.

Malaysia Case Law

MUHAMMAD FIKRI AFFENDY BIN MOHD FUAD Awang Sabar Bin Abdul [Berniaga Diatas Nama Dan Gaya Yuriee House Of Baker's]

KOH CHOO MENG

MUTHUKUMAR A/L M SINNATHAMBY [ ]

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) MOHD ASWARDI BIN WAHAB [Identity Card No.: 901121115487] 2. ) MOHD NAPI BIN ABDUL RAZAK [Identity Card No.: 841121115709]

ADIB NAFIS BIN HASSANE NAFIS

CIMB BANK BHD GLOBAL ADVANCED BROADBAND SOLUTIONS (M) SDN BHD