Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge not amounting to acquittal (dnaa)

Legal area

Court

7 May 2026

Bar Malaysia 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) AHMAD ZAHID BIN HAMIDI

Citation

W-01(IM)-488-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)-488-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Order 53 prescribes a single leave test: the applicant must show an arguable, non-frivolous case; where Article 145(3) prosecutorial discretion is challenged the ordinary leave test applies but must be applied with heightened discipline, caution and restraint given the presumption of legality and separation of powers; the appellant satisfied that threshold on the facts and the High Court erred in applying an unduly exacting test requiring 'compelling and prima facie proof'; appeal allowed and leave granted.
10 Dec 2025

GOH PIAK KENG

Citation

JA-83-3942-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83-3942-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Where the prosecution expressly informs the court it will not further prosecute at that stage and requests DNAA, the court lawfully may order discharge not amounting to acquittal under s.254 KTJ; given the prosecution's stated intention to possibly proceed later, DNAA was the appropriate order.
28 Nov 2025

MOHD NOOR AAZLY BIN YAHYA

Citation

JA-43(A)-1-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JA-43(A)-1-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Magistrate acted within law and discretion in granting a DNAA rather than D&A because the Prosecution did not unequivocally decline to prosecute, the adjournment request was not frivolous, s.254A permits reinstatement where witnesses had been called, and there was no evidence of mala fide or duplicity that would compel an acquittal; accordingly the High Court dismissed the revision.
23 Oct 2025

REGAL MARKETING & TRADING SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-87-1270-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-87-1270-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The summons in the present case is a new summons premised on written permission dated 20.8.2024; because that permission and the subsequent filing occurred after the 150-day statutory limit from sample procurement (6.7.2023), the prosecution is time-barred under s19(2) Food Act 1983 and the charge must be dismissed; s254A CPC does not revive the prosecution because witnesses had not been called and earlier DNAA orders arose from prosecutorial filing errors rather than an ongoing properly instituted prosecution.
2 Sept 2025

M Mahalechemy A/P P Muthusamy

Citation

JA-43-34-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-43-34-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred by granting DNAA without a prosecution notice under s.254 CPC and without a finding that the charge was groundless under s.173(g) CPC; the DNAA was therefore irregular and beyond the judge's jurisdiction and must be set aside, with the trial to continue before a new trial judge.
2 Oct 2024

MOHAMMAD FERDAUS BIN ISHAK

Citation

RA-82-2-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

RA-82-2-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Given the complainant withdrew and declined to give evidence, the prosecution indicated it would not call further witnesses and did not intend to proceed, and continued pendency caused real prejudice to the accused (suspension from public service and uncertainty), the court properly exercised its discretion under Section 254 KTJ to discharge and release the accused from the charge.
6 Sept 2024

1. ) LOK KIAN SENG 2. ) DANIEL HO CHIN CHER 3. ) WOON CHEE WENG 4. ) LIM CHIEN VOON

Citation

MA-83-1594-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-83-1594-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the accuseds' voluntary guilty pleas, found their roles in removing and abandoning the bodies were minimal and that the post‑mortem cause of death was unascertained; accordingly the appropriate and proportionate sentence was 20 months imprisonment on each count under s.201 Kanun Keseksaan, to run concurrently from the date of arrest, with mitigation credit for early plea and first offender status outweighing prosecution's call for a heavier sentence.
24 Apr 2024

NICHOLAS A/L MAZIVANAN

Citation

AA-41(Ors)(A)-1-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

AA-41(Ors)(A)-1-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted the Magistrate's Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal with a Discharge Amounting to an Acquittal because Section 254 grants the court discretion to order acquittal when the prosecution declines or is repeatedly unready to proceed, prosecutorial discretion under Article 145 is not absolute and does not preclude judicial determination, and the repeated delays and lack of preparedness by the prosecution caused injustice and undue hardship warranting DAA.
15 Feb 2024

SHEILA SHARON A/P STEVEN KUMAR

Citation

B-07-89-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

B-07-89-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Leave to appeal was granted because the High Court's exercise of revision without notifying or hearing the accused breached s.325(2) CPC and the audi alteram partem principle, constituting a miscarriage of justice and raising questions of law; therefore the applicant satisfied the threshold for leave under s.50(2) CJA.
26 Jan 2024

Abdul Razak Bin Anwar Batcha

Citation

WA-42K-9-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42K-9-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court applied the binding majority in Vigney Alfred Raj and statutory text of s.254(3) CPC and Article 145(3) FC: where prosecution withdraws before judgment and seeks DNAA pending further investigation, the default and proper order is DNAA unless clear circumstances justify DAA; the Sessions Court properly exercised discretion and its DNAA is affirmed.