Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Forensic analysis

  • 21 Jan 2026

    DEVARAJ A/L ANPALAGAN

    Citation
    BA-45A-153-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-153-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove the essential mens rea element that the accused had knowledge of and control over the drugs; momentary custody and proximity to a concealed, black‑wrapped package that another person claimed ownership of did not establish possession for purposes of s39B(1)(a) ADB. Consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and released without being called to enter defence.

  • 28 Dec 2025

    MUHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN BERAHIM

    Citation
    DA-83D-494-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    DA-83D-494-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The prosecution failed to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt because material, irreconcilable contradictions between prosecution witnesses about how and where the arrest occurred (whether the shop was open or closed) fatally undermined the prosecution's narrative and credibility, giving rise to reasonable doubt and an adverse inference under s114(g); therefore no prima facie case was established and the accused must be discharged and acquitted.

  • 10 Oct 2025

    YAZID BIN ABDUL RANI

    Citation
    AJ-83D-77-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AJ-83D-77-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution failed to prove the element of possession because it did not exclude access by others to the location where the drugs were found, did not investigate or produce persons known to frequent the premises, and provided no nexus such as fingerprints or incriminating circumstances linking the drugs to the accused; therefore no prima facie case was established and the accused must be acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

  • 28 May 2025

    CHENG HON CHOONG

    Citation
    AN-83D-43-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AN-83D-43-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that eleven packets of Methamphetamine totalling 8.40g were in the accused's possession (found in shorts he wore), chain of custody discrepancies were minor and supported by consistent oral testimony, forensic evidence established identity and weight of drug within statutory band, and the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt (defensive assertions were uncorroborated and afterthoughts); therefore the accused was convicted under s12(2) and s15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced accordingly.

  • 29 Nov 2024

    HARNAESH SINGH A/L AVTAR SINGH

    Citation
    WA-62D-617-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    WA-62D-617-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Prosecution proved all elements of Section 6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952: the seized material was chemically identified as cannabis weighing 67.90g and, because it was found in a bag carried by the accused containing his identity card and the chain of custody was intact, the accused had possession and knowledge; the defence was a bare denial that failed to raise reasonable doubt; accordingly convicted under Section 6 ADB and sentenced under Section 39A(2).

  • 27 Oct 2024

    [ ] MOHD KHUZAIMI BIN AHMAD

    Citation
    JB-45A-8-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JB-45A-8-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: identity and weight were proven by the chemist but core elements of possession and knowledge were not proved beyond reasonable doubt because of real and material doubt whether the drugs were found on the bedroom cabinet or outside at the back of the house, unchallenged credible evidence of the accused’s wife denying such presence, failure to call corroborating officers and to investigate the accused's Alcontara/cautioned statement; therefore presumption of trafficking under s37(da) did not arise and accused must be…

  • 21 Sept 2023

    [ ] Muhammad Faris Bin Amran

    Citation
    DD-83D-304-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    DD-83D-304-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had physical custody and control of the heroin found in his right front trouser pocket and had the requisite knowledge; the defence was a bare denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt, therefore conviction under s12(2) ADB 1952 read with s39A(1) followed and the prescribed sentence was imposed.

  • 24 Aug 2023

    THAVAKUMARAN A/L PALANIANDY

    Citation
    BA-45A-166-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-166-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Despite chemical confirmation of Cannabis and its weight, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material contradictions and unexplained gaps in the police evidence regarding custody, transfer, and documentary discrepancies undermined the continuity and reliability of the chain of custody and the credibility of key witness evidence (SP2). The inconsistencies defeated the prosecution's case on maximum assessment.

  • 12 May 2022

    Saiful Izmarizal Bin Othman [ ]

    Citation
    AB-42S-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    AB-42S-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The conviction was upheld because the prosecution proved the accused possessed the drugs found in his trouser pocket with an intact evidential trail for the primary packets and positive chemical analysis; the alleged missing ancillary plastic bag did not break the chain of custody; however, applying the totality principle the aggregate imprisonment was excessive and was reduced to an 8‑year term with whipping totaling 13 strokes, effective from 26.6.2019, with whipping to take effect consecutively pursuant to CPC s.288(5).

  • 15 Apr 2022

    [Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] 1. ) LIM CHIN SENG 2. ) OOI GUAT LAY

    Citation
    PA-83-169-01/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    PA-83-169-01/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution proved the goods were prohibited/import-restricted and uncustomed, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either accused had possession, control or knowledge of those goods or common intention under s34; statements at scene were inadmissible for want of timely caution and evidentiary gaps (unidentified persons present and unexplained sample/crate discrepancy) created reasonable doubt; therefore no prima facie case and accused discharged, while goods are forfeited under s127.