Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference under s114(g) evidence act

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2025

PSHOLIDAYS.COM SDN BHD RAKAN RIANG SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-43-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-43-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On balance of probabilities the court found plaintiff fulfilled its contractual obligation by modifying and delivering the bus exclusively for defendant's use and keeping it available for the contract period; defendant failed to terminate the contract, failed to prove that COVID-19 measures relieved it of payment obligations and failed to call material witnesses (warranting adverse inference). Therefore plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding rental and reasonable repainting/repair costs and the claims in the statement of claim are allowed.
27 Oct 2025

WONG JUN JIE

Citation

JA-62K-44-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-62K-44-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the notes were proven counterfeit by Bank Negara, the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements under s489B: that the accused was the person who used the notes as genuine in the transaction and that he knew they were counterfeit. Significant investigative gaps (no phone forensics, no fingerprint analysis, failure to call material witnesses from related investigations and the person who opened the rented premises) left reasonable doubt and prevented a finding of a prima facie case; therefore the accused was acquitted at the end of the prosecution's case.
22 Jul 2025

Vinu Kumar A/l Moganasundram [ ]

Citation

B-05(SH)-171-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-171-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellate court upheld the trial court's credibility findings that SP4 seized a sling bag worn by the appellant containing 152.5 grams of methamphetamine and the appellant's identity card; the appellant's defence was an afterthought, his witnesses were not present at the arrest and did not undermine the prosecution evidence, and the failure to call the motorcycle owner was irrelevant to custody/control; therefore the conviction under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the sentence of life imprisonment and 15 strokes were safe and must be affirmed.
17 Jun 2025

TEMPERLITE INSULATION SDN BHD AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-510-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-510-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Policy Jacket tendered was generic, bore no policy-specific identifiers, and the Defendant failed to prove delivery or call the agent; therefore the Plaintiff never had notice of Special Exclusion 1(c), the Policy Schedule constituted the complete contract as to the Plaintiff, the exclusion did not apply, and the Plaintiff proved entitlement to RM1,775,845.50 on the balance of probabilities.
3 Jun 2025

MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA

Citation

BA-45-54-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-54-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court acquitted both accused because prosecution did not prove possession, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt: the location of seizure was unclear, charges were imprecise, there were significant gaps in investigation and chain of custody, material witnesses and evidence (phones, CCTV, clothing) were not produced, and forensic/fingerprint evidence did not link the accused; the defence successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under s37(d) ADB on balance of probabilities.
7 May 2025

PUBLIC BANK BHD 1. ) SEE SWEE KEAT 2. ) HENG SAU WAH

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-93-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-93-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the subject fixed deposits remained outstanding; the plaintiffs could not produce original renewed receipts or supporting current account records, the bank's contemporaneous records and Registrar of Unclaimed Money inquiry showed no outstanding balances, and an adverse inference was properly drawn for non-production; the Sessions Court had therefore misdirected itself by reversing the burden of proof.
28 Apr 2025

WAN MOHD FAIZRUL BIN WAN NOR

Citation

DA-83D-1044-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83D-1044-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to prove prima facie that the Accused had control/custody of and knowledge of the methamphetamine because the registered owner of the motorcycle (Che Tahir) was not called, the seized drugs were in an openly accessible location allowing access by others, the investigation did not exclude alternative access, and adverse inference under s114(g) was justified; therefore reasonable doubt remained and the Accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to defend.
7 Apr 2025

AHMAD ZAMRI BIN ALI@ZAKARIA

Citation

KA-45A-56-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-56-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although prosecution established identification and net weight of methamphetamine and raised presumption of distribution (weight >50g), defence evidence created a reasonable doubt as to the accused's custody/control and knowledge of the drugs. Where reasonable doubt on possession exists and prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt under s182A KTJ, the court must acquit. Hence the accused was discharged.
15 Jan 2025

ZAINUDDIN BIN MAHMUD

Citation

KA-45A-29-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-29-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material and significant contradictions in the chief prosecution witness's evidence and the unreliability of the P22 record, combined with acceptance of SP5's account and the prosecution's failure to call two material witnesses, destroyed the prosecution's proof of possession and therefore of distribution; accordingly there was no prima facie case and the accused was acquitted.
9 Jan 2025

1. ) ROMLE BIN HASSAN 2. ) KOPERASI GERAKAN DAYA WAWASAN KAMPUNG PAYA GURING PERLIS BERHAD MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN ZULKEFLI

Citation

RA-23CY-1-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-23CY-1-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove their defamation claims on the balance of probabilities; the impugned statements were protected as fair comment on a matter of public interest, were not shown to be made with malice, and plaintiffs' failure to call relevant authority witnesses justified an adverse inference under s114(g); accordingly the claim is dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.