Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forensic/chemist evidence

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2025

NUR AISHAH BINTI ABDULLAH

Citation

J-05(SH)-310-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

J-05(SH)-310-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs by admissible and credible agent provocateur testimony, supported by chemist analysis and unbroken chain of custody; statutory presumption of distribution under s37(da) ADB 1952 applied and appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities, therefore conviction and life sentence are upheld.
16 Jan 2024

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMMAD HAZIQ IRFAN BIN MOHD ZAMRY 2. ) AMIRUL IMAN BIN AZHAR

Citation

WA-45A-12-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-12-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the chemist's tests established the seized plant material as cannabis, significant unexplained discrepancies in weights and missing packets, gaps in chain of custody, conflicting witness accounts and the prosecution's failure to produce available corroborative evidence (CCTV, raiding team) created reasonable doubt as to identity and continuity of exhibits and as to possession and knowledge. The unit was accessible to multiple persons, negating exclusive possession and common intention. On the maximum evaluation at the close of the prosecution case the court found no prima facie case…
5 Mar 2023

[ ] Mohd Khairul Amrie Bin Ariffin

Citation

DA-45A-14-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-45A-14-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all charges because it did not prove custody/control/knowledge of the accused over the seized drugs and racun: occupancy and exclusive access to the room was not established, forensic contact (fingerprints/DNA) was absent, vehicles' access/ownership/use by accused was not sufficiently demonstrated, and the prosecution failed to call a material witness (Mohd Shahfizal/Epi) whose testimony could exculpate or explain access; accordingly no reasonable inference of trafficking could be drawn and accused was discharged.
29 Jul 2022

SANTANASAMY A/L MUTHIAH [ ]

Citation

W-05(M)-302-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-302-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution proved the substances to be scheduled dangerous drugs, and proved the appellant had custody and control (keys, DNA, storage of belongings in the zipped cupboard and drugs in open view), permitting an inference of knowledge and common intention; the presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) applied to the methamphetamine quantity and was not rebutted, therefore convictions and sentences were upheld.

Malaysia Case Law

NUR AISHAH BINTI ABDULLAH

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMMAD HAZIQ IRFAN BIN MOHD ZAMRY 2. ) AMIRUL IMAN BIN AZHAR

[ ] Mohd Khairul Amrie Bin Ariffin

SANTANASAMY A/L MUTHIAH [ ]