Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Charge amendment under procedural code

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2024

[ ] KU KHENG CHOONG

Citation

DH-83-85-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DH-83-85-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove intoxication at the time of driving under Section 44(1)(b) because the forensic urine sample was taken hours after the incident creating a time-gap and uncertainty; however eyewitness testimony and vehicle damage established a prima facie case of dangerous driving under Section 41(1) APJ, leading to conviction under s41(1). Sentence imposed: 3 years imprisonment from date of conviction, RM6000 fine (12 months default), and disqualification from driving for 3 years.
20 Mar 2024

MOHD ADI HASARLI BIN ARIFFIN

Citation

AA-83-7-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-83-7-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to call and/or investigate identified material public witnesses (Syaminuddin and Ragavan) creating a material gap such that prima facie case under s41(1) was not proved; absence/non-production of CCTV was not fatal where CCTV did not exist or was unclear; however admitted facts and prosecution evidence sufficed to establish an offence under s43(1) (driving without due care and attention), permitting amendment of the charge under s158 CPC and conviction under s43(1).