Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Alcontara notice

  • 24 Feb 2026

    MUHAMAD AZLI BIN MUHAMAD NOR

    Citation
    TF-83D-415-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    TF-83D-415-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Physical discovery of the drug in the accused's hand, supported by consistent police testimony, documentary and chemical evidence established the elements of the offence; the statutory presumption under section 37(d) ADB applied and the defence failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities or to raise reasonable doubt; Alcontara notice was late and insufficient and did not prejudice the accused; conviction followed.

  • 7 Jan 2026

    KHAIRUL IZZUDDIN BIN A RODZI

    Citation
    JF-83D-524-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JF-83D-524-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution proved identity of the substance as methamphetamine (8.20g) by credible chemist evidence and maintained an unbroken chain of custody; eyewitness evidence placed the exhibit in the accused's right front pocket and supported inference of control and knowledge; contradictions in prosecution testimony were minor and not material; defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt or provide sufficient Alcontara particulars; accordingly accused was guilty under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and duly sentenced to 30 months imprisonment and three strokes.

  • 16 Dec 2025

    SUKKERI BIN SALLEH

    Citation
    JD-82D-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JD-82D-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court accepted chemical identification that seized material contained Mitragynine but found prosecution failed to prove possession by accused because premises were used by others, evidence conflicted as to location of seizure, investigators did not secure keys or conduct adequate forensic linkage, and prosecution failed to call/offer DSP Ng despite early notice; gaps were material and prosecution did not make out a prima facie case, so accused acquitted without calling defence.

  • 4 Sept 2025

    MOHD SOBRI BIN ABU BAKAR

    Citation
    KA-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court found that prosecution evidence established physical control of the vehicle by the accused at and before arrest and, by inference from circumstances and accused's conduct, the mental element of knowledge. Chemical analysis confirmed the quantities alleged and the statutory presumption of distribution for heroin exceeding 15g was properly raised and not rebutted on the balance of probabilities. Defence assertions of third‑party ownership and borrowing were determined to be afterthoughts, unsupported and implausible. Accordingly the prosecution proved the offences beyond reasonab…

  • 4 Sept 2025

    MOHD SOBRI BIN ABU BAKAR

    Citation
    KA-45-7-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45-7-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court found prosecution proved physical custody/control and knowledge of the drugs by direct evidence and permissible inferences; heroin weight exceeded statutory threshold invoking presumption of distribution which defence failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; defence account deemed afterthought and insufficient to raise reasonable doubt; therefore accused guilty on all three charges and sentenced accordingly.

  • 4 Sept 2025

    MOHD SOBRI BIN ABU BAKAR

    Citation
    KA-45-31-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45-31-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had custody/control and knowledge of the seized drugs found in a toolbox in the vehicle he was solely driving; the weight of heroin exceeded statutory threshold so presumption of distribution under s37(da)(i) was raised and not rebutted on balance of probabilities; defence explanation was an unsupported afterthought and failed to create reasonable doubt; accordingly accused convicted on all three charges and sentenced as specified.

  • 17 Aug 2025

    ISMAWARDI BIN ISMAIL

    Citation
    KA-45A-47-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45A-47-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Material discrepancies between the wife's written statement (D21) and police testimony, combined with the investigating officer's failure to conduct meaningful follow-up investigation and the prosecution's refusal to call a material and available witness, prejudiced the accused; once an Alcontara-type notice was effectively given, the burden shifted to the prosecution to investigate and rebut, and the court was entitled to draw an adverse inference under s.114(g); therefore it was unsafe to order the accused to enter his defence and he must be acquitted and discharged.

  • 17 Aug 2025

    ISMAWARDI BIN ISMAIL

    Citation
    KA-45-24-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45-24-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found material investigative failures: SP6 did not investigate the defence disclosure (D21) and the prosecution failed to call the material witness Norlela binti Shamat whose testimony was necessary to resolve conflicting accounts of arrest, warnings, access to the car and discovery of the bag. Those unresolved, material contradictions deprived the accused of a fair trial, justified drawing an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act against the prosecution and rendered it unsafe to call the accused to enter defence. The accused was therefore discharged and acquitted.

  • 26 May 2025

    MUHAMMAD MUHIZAN BIN RAMLI

    Citation
    KA-45A-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45A-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the defence, supported by two credible witnesses, produced an alternative and coherent inference that created reasonable doubt as to possession and knowledge; the statutory presumption was rebutted by the defence narrative and prosecutorial omissions to investigate or call corroborative inquiry, therefore accused must be acquitted.

  • 29 Apr 2025

    Joon Zheng Han [ ]

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-359-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-359-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant had possession and knowledge of methamphetamine: the deliberate and meticulous concealment (taped packages on both thighs and hidden in shoes), admissions in cautioned statements, CCTV and forensic analysis supported the inference of knowledge. Duress and innocent‑carrier defences failed (duress not imminent/extreme; defence evidence not credible). Alcontara notices were imperfect and did not oblige further inquiry. Accordingly convictions under s39B(1)(a) ADB and sentences were upheld.