Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dangerous drugs act 1952

Legal area

Court

21 Jan 2026

DEVARAJ A/L ANPALAGAN

Citation

BA-45A-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of knowledge/animus possidendi required for possession offences; physical proximity and momentary custody of a bag described by a third party as containing food were insufficient to establish a prima facie case under s39B(1)(a) ADB; accordingly the accused was discharged and released without being called upon to give defence evidence.
21 Oct 2025

NUR SYAFIQ BIN ZAKARIA [ ]

Citation

DA-42H-4-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-42H-4-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court did not misapply the law or abuse its discretion in ordering the sentence to commence from the date of sentencing; the five year imprisonment, one stroke of the cane and two year supervision order were within legal limits and properly considered in light of the applicant's two prior convictions, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
15 Oct 2025

CHE KU SAHABUDIN BIN CHE KU MAN

Citation

T-05(SH)-581-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

T-05(SH)-581-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court held the correct starting position is that imprisonment should not be enhanced merely because the offender is exempted from mandatory whipping under section 289 CPC; enhancement is discretionary and may only be imposed where objective aggravating factors justify additional imprisonment after proper exercise of judicial discretion. The Learned Judicial Commissioner erred by feeling compelled to enhance sentence solely to compensate for the exemption and thereby undermining the statutory privilege.
30 Sept 2025

[ ] 1. ) Azman Bin Abdul Hamid 2. ) Shahril Bin Ahmad 3. ) Saifol Bin Ahmad

Citation

K-05(LB)-441-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

K-05(LB)-441-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that evidence of a negotiated sale to an agent provocateur established trafficking under s.2 DDA and that, on the whole record, there was overwhelming evidence of Respondent 1's possession and knowledge; accordingly the trial judge's acquittal of Respondent 1 was set aside and replaced with conviction under s.39A(2) DDA with five years’ imprisonment from 30.09.2025. The absence of phone-call analyses did not cause miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to prove Respondent 3's involvement beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal of Respondent 3 was upheld.
24 Aug 2025

MOHD ALI BIN JAAFAR

Citation

KA-45A-36-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-36-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the accused's guilty pleas as knowing and voluntary, balanced mitigation (first offender, health, family hardship and plea) against public interest and deterrence, and concluded that the substantial quantity of methamphetamine (153.18g) and seriousness of the offences required a deterrent custodial sentence: eight years imprisonment and 10 strokes for the main count (KA-45A-36-05/2022) and two years imprisonment and 3 strokes for the secondary count (KA-45-17-05/2022), to run concurrently.
5 Aug 2025

Asriyadi Bin Bakri [ ]

Citation

S-05(SH)-464-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

S-05(SH)-464-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The conviction was upheld because direct eyewitness evidence established physical possession of the package, chain of custody to analysis was intact and uncontested, chemist evidence proved the substance was methamphetamine weighing 64.83 grams, the presumption of trafficking under s37(d) DDA 1952 applied and was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities, and failures to produce a phone, fingerprints or photographs did not amount to suppression of material evidence or undermine the accepted eyewitness testimony.
22 Jul 2025

AZAHAR BIN OSMAN

Citation

KA-45A-22-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-22-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held that notwithstanding the accused's guilty pleas and mitigation, the gravity of multiple offences involving four different dangerous drugs, public interest and deterrence required substantial custodial sentences; imposed 11 years imprisonment for each of the three counts punishable under s39A(2) and 3 years imprisonment for each of the three counts under s39A(1) to run concurrently from date of arrest, and no whipping ordered due to age; sentences were not manifestly excessive.
16 Jul 2025

JEEVAN RAJ A/L RAJU

Citation

BA-62D-119-06/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62D-119-06/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court convicted the accused under s.39C(1)(b) DDA and, after weighing public interest, seriousness of the offence, the guilty plea and mitigation, imposed the statutory minimum custodial sentence of five years, one stroke of whipping and two years police supervision; the sentence is ordered to commence upon conclusion of the accused's current distinct sentence under s.379 Penal Code because the offences did not form one transaction and therefore should not run concurrently.
11 Jul 2025

MUHAMMAD AMIRUL AFIQ BIN ABDUL RASHID

Citation

WA-83D-7468-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-83D-7468-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation of the evidence the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized tablets were MDMA listed in the First Schedule and were in the accused's possession (found in his front right pocket with contemporaneous markings and documents, positive identification by seizure and chemist analysis), the chain of custody was intact and the defence allegation of planting did not raise a reasonable doubt; conviction entered under s12(2) DDA and sentence imposed (3 years imprisonment and 3 strokes), with stay of execution granted only for the whipping pending appeal.
20 May 2025

MOHD ISMAIL BIN ABD RAHMAN [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

A-05(H)-556-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

A-05(H)-556-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the High Court did not err in law or principle: the 2017 conviction was of the same statutory offence (s 12(2) DDA) and justified limited mitigation from the guilty plea given recidivism and the quantity/paraphernalia indicating repackaging; the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeal is dismissed.