Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Dangerous drugs

  • 24 Aug 2025

    MOHD ALI BIN JAAFAR

    Citation
    KA-45-17-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45-17-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court accepted that the accused's guilty pleas were voluntary and informed but prioritized public interest and deterrence given the substantial quantity of methamphetamine (153.18g) and additional heroin possession; having weighed mitigation (first offender status, health, family) against aggravating factors and statutory ranges, court sentenced the accused to 8 years imprisonment and 10 strokes for the substituted methamphetamine possession charge and 2 years imprisonment and 3 strokes for the heroin possession charge, to run concurrently; whipping may be withheld if medical confirmation sho…

  • 11 Apr 2025

    [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMED RIZAL BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN

    Citation
    CF-83D-305-06/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CF-83D-305-06/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court convicted because prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of s15(1)(a) DDA 1952: urine analysis confirmed THC (a Part III substance), the statutory presumption under s37(k) was properly invoked after proof of basic facts including valid collection and intact chain of custody, and the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt; national and international testing guidelines are advisory and not legally binding absent ministerial regulation.

  • 20 Feb 2024

    MUHAMAD ADIB BIN ZAINOL

    Citation
    BF-62D-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BF-62D-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Section 39C(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 mandates a custodial sentence between five and seven years and whipping for an offender with the requisite prior convictions; the court accepted the guilty plea as mitigation but found it outweighed by the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's repeated convictions for the same offence and the public interest in deterrence, and therefore imposed six years imprisonment, three strokes and three years supervision.

  • 19 Oct 2022

    [ ] MOHAMAD FADHILAH BIN BANTUT

    Citation
    AA-41H(A)-1-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    AA-41H(A)-1-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The sole urine sample was inadmissible where screening and confirmation were to be performed at separate locations because the procedural safeguard requiring duplicate samples (KKM Guideline No.6/2002 read with IGSO F103/Arahan Pentadbiran PJSJN Bil.1/2018) was not observed; coupled with material evidential discrepancies and breakpoints in the evidential trail, the prosecution failed to make out a safe prima facie case, therefore the Magistrate's conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.

  • 1 Dec 2021

    1. ) BALACHANDRAN A/L K. ARUJUNAN 2. ) SHANTI DEVI A/P BENASHI DAS

    Citation
    P-07-87-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    P-07-87-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a standalone Notice of Motion seeking bail and to determine the constitutionality of s41/s41B DDA because s44 CJA only empowers the Court to make incidental or interim orders in relation to proceedings already pending before it; absent any appeal or pending proceeding before the Court of Appeal, the NOM was incompetent and an abuse of process and therefore dismissed in limine.

  • 5 Sept 2021

    YAHYA HUSSEIN MOHSEN ABDULRAB PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

    Citation
    05(M)-43-04/2020(S) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    05(M)-43-04/2020(S) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

    On an objective assessment the trial counsel's failures were flagrantly incompetent and deprived the appellant of his constitutional right to a fair trial; the additional evidence on appeal corroborated the appellant's defence and rebutted the statutory presumption of knowledge under section 37(d) DDA on the balance of probabilities; the conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed with the appellant acquitted and discharged; a retrial was inappropriate given the prolonged incarceration and prejudice to the appellant.