Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Marking of exhibits

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

Citation

CB-83D-1910-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-1910-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material gaps and weaknesses in chain of custody and exhibit identification (no marking at scene, no seizure form completed at scene, multiple contemporaneous arrests/rampasan under same team) permitted a reasonable inference that the exhibits analysed were not necessarily those seized from the accused; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to defend and they must be discharged and acquitted.
18 Nov 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

Citation

CB-83D-1364-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-1364-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie case because exhibits could not be reliably traced to the accused due to absence of on‑scene marking and seizure form, and SP2's involvement in multiple arrests created real doubt about the identity and custody of the seized items; accordingly the accused were discharged and acquitted.
18 Nov 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

Citation

CB-83D-1910-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-1910-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because there was no marking of exhibits at the scene, no seizure form completed at the scene, and SP2 was involved in multiple arrests/seizures creating a real possibility of commingling, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and it was unsafe to call the accused to answer; accordingly the accused were acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution's case.
18 Nov 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

Citation

CB-83D-1364-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-1364-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because there was insufficient proof that the items analysed were those seized from the accused: exhibits were not marked or recorded at the scene, multiple contemporaneous arrests and seizures occurred under the same officer, and the prosecution could not exclude the reasonable inference that the submitted exhibits were from other seizures; therefore it was unsafe to call accused to enter defence and they must be discharged.
9 Feb 2022

PENDAKWARAYA Tan Sze Meng

Citation

JG-83D-99-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JG-83D-99-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved identity of the substance (Cannabis, 45.45g net), continuity of custody and that the drugs were in open proximity in the accused's exclusive room together with clothing and bankbook linking the accused; clerical marking errors and absence of photos/fingerprints/DNA were not fatal; defence failed to give adequate Alcontara particulars or evidence to raise reasonable doubt; accused convicted under s.6 ADB read with s.39A(1) and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment; whipping not imposed due to s.289 CPC; execution of sentence stayed on conditions pendi…

Malaysia Case Law

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUDIN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NIK ZAIDAH BINTI NIK LONG

PENDAKWARAYA Tan Sze Meng