Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Charge amendment

  • 16 Nov 2025

    Ahmad Jefri Azizi Bin Mohamad Sukri

    Citation
    DA-42R(A)-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    DA-42R(A)-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Appeal allowed because the prosecution failed to prove the essential particulars of the amended charge (expired visit pass) and failed to prove that the alleged receipt of RM1,000 was for an unlawful purpose; the alleged cash provenance was inherently incredible and created reasonable doubt; consequently the presumption under s.50(1) could not be applied and the conviction was unsafe.

  • 30 May 2025

    KHAIRUL MUHSEIN BIN ABDULLAH

    Citation
    CA-83JS-8-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CA-83JS-8-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court found prosecution failed to prove the specific element of 'gross indecency' under Section 377D but accepted complainant's substantive identification and corroborative CCTV/evidence established the use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty; accordingly court properly amended the charge under Section 173 CPC to Section 354, found defendant guilty on that amended charge and sentenced him to one year imprisonment, the defence having failed to raise a reasonable doubt.

  • 29 May 2025

    1. ) MUHAMMAD SUHAIRY BIN OSMAN 2. ) MUHAMMAD NORHANDIGA BIN NORCHOLES

    Citation
    WA-62RS-150-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    WA-62RS-150-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Guilty pleas attracted mitigation but were outweighed by the gravity of gang robbery and public interest in deterrence; balancing statutory maximum, seriousness, guilty plea and remand time, court imposed four years imprisonment and three strokes, sentence to run from date of arrest (15/9/2024).

  • 16 Jan 2025

    SYED SANIM BIN SYED MOHAMED

    Citation
    JD-83-333-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JD-83-333-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to prove the critical element of driving 'in a manner dangerous to the public' under s.41(1) APJ 1987 and mens rea to create an obvious and serious risk was not established; eyewitnesses placed the victim riding in the middle lane (contributory risk) and the precise cause of the MPV entering that lane was not determinable (overtaking claim not proved). Presence of methadone supported inference of possible drowsiness but did not prove reckless/dangerous driving beyond prima facie. Therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to answer s.41(1); howeve…

  • 7 Nov 2024

    MOHD SALLEH BIN MEERASHA

    Citation
    M-06A-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    M-06A-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The appeal is incompetent and dismissed because the High Court's order amending the charge and calling the accused to enter defence at the close of prosecution is interlocutory and not a final 'decision' within the meaning of s3 and s50 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; the proper course is remittance to the High Court to hear the defence and make a final determination.

  • 27 May 2024

    1. ) RAZ INTAN DEVELOPMENT SDN.BHD. 2. ) ZULAIHA BINTI MOHD AZAM

    Citation
    AC-87-200-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AC-87-200-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution proved both essential elements: the accused sold palm fruit in March, April and May 2020 and lacked a valid MPOB licence for that period. Regulation 5(1)(b) creates a strict liability offence so mens rea need not be proved. The court validly amended charges to rely on s68(1)(a) MPOB Act without prejudice. On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence a prima facie case existed and convictions were warranted; sentencing focused on deterrence and public interest leading to fines and default imprisonment terms as ordered.

  • 18 Apr 2024

    Izudin Bin Abu Talib [ ]

    Citation
    B-05(M)-511-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-511-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence under section 39B(1)(a)/39B(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 because the prosecution and Attorney General consented to an amended charge; the appellant was convicted on the substituted charge under section 6 and sentenced under section 39A(2) to 10 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes. The Court took into account mitigation (no prior record, remorse and prolonged remand) and current sentencing trends for the same class of drug offences in imposing the reduced sentence.

  • 11 Mar 2024

    MOHD SALWAN BIN AB AZIZ

    Citation
    AB-42JSKS(A)-1-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    AB-42JSKS(A)-1-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Convictions were unsafe due to material procedural errors: trial judge failed to comply with s.402A CPC and ss.159/162 CPC when charges were amended (failing to inform accused of alibi rights and to allow recall/re-examination of witnesses), impeached a defence witness without affording opportunity to explain contradictions, and did not properly evaluate defence evidence (including alibi roster); these errors required setting aside convictions and ordering retrial before a different judge.

  • 5 Feb 2024

    [ ] UDI ANAK AMBO

    Citation
    Q-05(LB)-351-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    LB
    Case number
    Q-05(LB)-351-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held the prosecution proved all elements of murder under paragraph 300(c) and that R1 and R2 acted in furtherance of a common intention; respondents failed on the balance of probabilities to establish private defence because the parang had been seized and the apprehension of danger had ceased, making the subsequent multiple stabbings excessive and unnecessary. The purported defect in the charge (wrong date) was remedied by an oral amendment in court without prejudice, so the charge was not fatal.

  • 11 Dec 2023

    MOHD JEFRI BIN AHMAD

    Citation
    WA-83RS-927-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    WA-83RS-927-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution proved only that accused entered the premises; it failed to prove by direct or sufficiently cogent circumstantial evidence that the accused pried open the glass door or that no other person could have committed the house‑breaking and theft; the oral application to drop section 34 was prejudicial and refused; only a non‑prejudicial wording addition ('to commit theft') was allowed; on the totality of evidence no prima facie case was established and the accused was discharged and acquitted.