Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Knowledge and control

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MOHAMAD SUFIAN BIN SAHBUDIN 2. ) MOHD NIZAM BIN POIMAN

Citation

CB-45-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

For charges where drugs were found in an exposed motorcycle basket, the prosecution failed to prove prima facie that OKT1 or OKT2 had possession, knowledge and control because there was no evidence excluding third‑party access, no chain of custody or source of the motorcycle was established and no direct link to either accused; thus no prima facie case for those charges. However, for the amended charge in CB-45-10-04/2023 (1.01g methamphetamine) the prosecution did establish a prima facie case against OKT1 and OKT1 was ordered to be called to enter his defence.
15 Oct 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMAD SUFIAN BIN SAHBUDIN

Citation

CB-45-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution proved the identity of the seized substances but failed to show a prima facie link of knowledge, control or exclusive possession by either accused to the drugs found in an exposed motorcycle basket, except for the amended charge against OKT1 in CB-45-10-04/2023 where the evidence warranted calling OKT1 to enter defence; all other charges lacked prima facie evidence and both accused were acquitted and discharged on those counts.
3 Oct 2025

1. ) ALVIN RAJ A/L ANDREW ROY 2. ) MITHRA A/P R.SELVAKUMAR

Citation

BA-45A-19-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-19-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond prima facie that either defendant had control, custody and knowledge of the methamphetamine or that they shared a common intention to traffic it; close proximity was insufficient, investigation was inadequate and material witnesses (the renter Xeno Cravier and arresting officers) were not called such that s114(g) was engaged; therefore no prima facie case and defendants acquitted.
28 Sept 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD QAMARUL MUSLIHUDDIN BIN ABD WAHAB 2. ) MUHAMMAD ARIF BIN MAMAT NOH

Citation

DA-83D-1417-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83D-1417-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution failed to establish that the First Accused had knowledge, custody or control of the drugs due to lack of any factual link or exclusivity of use of the motorcycle; although a prima facie case was initially found against the Second Accused based on registration and conduct, defence evidence raised reasonable doubt about exclusive control and access (including testimony that the motorcycle was parked and possibly used by a third party), and the presumption under s37(d) DDA was rebutted on the balance of probabilities; accordingly both accused were discharged and a…
28 Apr 2025

WAN MOHD FAIZRUL BIN WAN NOR

Citation

DA-83D-1044-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83D-1044-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to prove prima facie that the Accused had control/custody of and knowledge of the methamphetamine because the registered owner of the motorcycle (Che Tahir) was not called, the seized drugs were in an openly accessible location allowing access by others, the investigation did not exclude alternative access, and adverse inference under s114(g) was justified; therefore reasonable doubt remained and the Accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to defend.
30 Jan 2024

BAHTHIAR BIN MOHD SOAD

Citation

JI-83D-460-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JI-83D-460-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved all elements of possession under Section 12(2)/12(3) DDA 1952: the seized items were the same items sent to the chemistry department, chemical analysis confirmed the drugs, the bag was in the accused's hand establishing control and custody, statutory presumption under s37(d) applied and the defence failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the accused was convicted and sentenced as specified.
30 Jan 2024

BAHTHIAR BIN MOHD SOAD

Citation

JI-83D-699-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JI-83D-699-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved the elements of possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt: the drugs were found in a bag held by the accused, the chain of custody was established by seizure and markings, chemical analysis confirmed the drugs, and the statutory presumption under s37(d) applied; the defence's alternative account was mere denial and did not rebut the presumption on balance of probabilities or create reasonable doubt.
13 Oct 2022

1. ) MOHAMAD SHAHRUL BIN MOHAMAD 2. ) MOHAMAD SYAFIQ BIN MOHAMAD 3. ) MOHD RAZI BIN ABDUL RAZAK

Citation

JA-83D-1996-04/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83D-1996-04/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of possession: the methamphetamine was within the accuseds' immediate control and reach, supported by paraphernalia and positive urine tests; chain of custody from seizure to chemical analysis was continuous and reliable; the statutory presumption under s37(d) applied and was not rebutted by the defence; accordingly the accuseds were convicted under s12(2) DDA and sentenced under s39A(1).
29 Aug 2022

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MUHAMMAD NUR FIKRI BIN JUAHARI

Citation

CB-83D-1003-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-1003-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had physical possession, control and knowledge of the methamphetamine (10.66g) found in his trouser pocket; chemist evidence and chain of custody were credible and sufficient; amendment of the date to 15.9.2020 under s158 KTJ was proper and non-prejudicial; defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; accused convicted under s12(2) ADB 1952 read with s39A(1) and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and 4 strokes; application to stay execution refused.
31 May 2022

PUAN MUNA BINTI JAFFAR MOHAMMAD AZIZAN BIN SAHUL HAMEED

Citation

PA-45A-24-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-45A-24-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to exclude reasonable possibility that others had access to and control of the vehicle and failed to call a material witness (Muhammad Adnin) whose evidence could negate prosecution narrative; the presumption in s37(h) ADB did not apply because the accused was not shown to be owner or person in charge; therefore there was no prima facie case and the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter his defence.