Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exclusive possession

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2025

THIAGARAJAN A/L RAMAN

Citation

K-05(SH)-276-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

K-05(SH)-276-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellate court upheld trial judge's findings: contradictions in prosecution evidence were technical and non‑material, chain of custody was intact, and facts (presence of seized packets, packing equipment and appellant's control) established possession and distribution under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; accordingly convictions and sentences were affirmed.
29 May 2025

1. ) LAI CHEE MIN 2. ) PHOONG SIEW MAE WONG CHOY MEE

Citation

BH-A53-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BH-A53-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof to show exclusive possession of the disputed lots and, independently, failed to adduce objective or expert evidence proving that the defendant's limited daytime restaurant operations caused a substantive, unreasonable private nuisance; accordingly the claims must be dismissed with costs.
30 Oct 2024

MOHAMAD SYAIFFULRIZAM BIN BUSU

Citation

KA-45-3-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45-3-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted prosecution evidence as credible and continuous: chemist identification established drugs; accused was in immediate proximity to seized bag and produced the hidden cache after giving information admissible under s.27; the cache was hidden such that only accused knew its location establishing exclusive control and knowledge; statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) applied and defence failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; therefore prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and accused convicted and sentenced as set out.
30 Oct 2024

MOHD HAKIMI BIN AB MANAS

Citation

DJ-83D-1342-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DJ-83D-1342-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to prove the essential element of possession/control and there were material inconsistencies and unexplained breaks in the chain of custody regarding the condition and whereabouts of exhibits; on maximum evaluation no prima facie case was established and the accused must be discharged and acquitted.
30 Oct 2024

MOHD HAKIMI BIN AB MANAS

Citation

DJ-83D-1342-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DJ-83D-1342-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Applying the maximum evaluation test to prosecution evidence the court found material contradictions about where and in what condition the exhibits were found, insufficient corroboration that the accused had exclusive control/possession or knowledge of the drugs, and a broken/unexplained chain of custody; accordingly the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under Section 12(2) DDA and the accused was discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.
6 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: key alternative owners or persons with access (Hariharan, Suresh/@Fire and other occupants) were not excluded; prosecution failed to secure attendance of essential witnesses and did not produce CCTV/visitor records; existence of unexplained pink bag and unanalysed phones further created reasonable doubt. Adverse inferences under s114(g) Evidence Act were warranted. On maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore accused were acqui…
6 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

WA-45-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: material alternatives (co-occupants and identified suspects) had access to the unit, prosecution failed to call key witnesses and withheld or did not produce material evidence (pink bag, CCTV, visitor book, phones) giving rise to adverse inferences under s114(g); on maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict so accused were acquitted without being called to defend themselves.
13 May 2022

Muhammad Fakruradzi Bin Hussin [ ]

Citation

CB-41S-8-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-41S-8-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court held the magistrate's conviction was unsafe because the magistrate improperly penalised the defence for not calling witnesses, effectively shifting the burden of proof; exclusion of statements for lack of caution narrowed admissible evidence and the remaining prosecution evidence linking the appellant to the drugs was insufficiently supported and therefore the conviction and sentence were quashed.
16 Mar 2022

[ ] 1. ) MOHD MUNAWIR BIN MOHAMED ANUAR 2. ) AHMAD REDZLAN BIN ZAINUDIN

Citation

BA-45-32-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-32-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because it did not exclude the real possibility of access by other persons to the main bedroom and storeroom where the drugs and poisons were found; multiple occupants and an uninvestigated lodger (Sharil) had access, co-occupants were not called to rebut ownership, and there was no sufficient evidence linking either accused to exclusive custody, control or knowledge of the seized substances or to distribution; accordingly neither accused had proven possession or trafficking and must be acquitted.
22 Feb 2022

PATRICK A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

PA-42H-1-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-42H-1-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in concluding a prima facie case because the prosecution failed to exclude reasonable possibilities that others had access to the room and could have placed the drugs there, and the trial judge improperly rejected PW8's evidence in toto without particularisation; consequently the prosecution did not prove custody, control or knowledge required to sustain the charges at the close of its case.