Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Effluent discharge

  • 14 Jul 2025

    ON SEMICONDUCTOR MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

    Citation
    NA-63ES-3-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    NA-63ES-3-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Although the prosecution established a prima facie case based on official sampling and laboratory analysis showing cadmium at 1.04 mg/L, the defence adduced credible, independent laboratory evidence and challenged the integrity of the prosecution's samples (temperature, pH, storage, equipment and chain of custody). Those challenges raised reasonable doubt such that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the accused must be acquitted under Regulation 11(1)(b) of the Environmental Quality (Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009.

  • 7 Jul 2025

    PK AGRO-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS (M) SDN. BHD

    Citation
    NA-63ES-17-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    NA-63ES-17-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Prosecution proved all elements of the offence: (1) discharge of industrial effluent from the final treatment outlet, (2) lab analysis established COD concentration 580 mg/l exceeding Standard B limit 200 mg/l, and (3) effluent entered inland/public waters; defence evidence did not create reasonable doubt because tests relied on by accused were not contemporaneous; accordingly accused is guilty under Regulation 12(b) and is sentenced to a fine of RM20,000; application to suspend execution of sentence refused for lack of special reasons.

  • 11 Feb 2021

    PENDAKWARAYA TPR TUAN MOHD IZHAM BIN ALI FERMPRO SDN. BHD. [83579-K]

    Citation
    RA-42ES-1-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    RA-42ES-1-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court held that, as a matter of grammar and statutory interpretation of the authoritative Malay text, the modifier 'berbahaya' in s31(1) Akta 127 applies only to 'alam sekeliling' (environment) and not to 'pencemar' or 'buangan'; further, the prosecution had, by maximum evaluation and at trial conclusion, proved the elements of s31(1)(g) as a strict liability offence (valid notice, discharge of effluent and failure to comply), and the conviction and sentence under s31(3) Akta 127 were therefore upheld.