Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Possession, custody and control

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2025

[ ] MOHD KAMAL BIN IBRAHIM

Citation

DA-45A-11-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-45A-11-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although chemical analysis proved the seized material was Methamphetamine, the prosecution failed to prove the accused had exclusive possession, custody or control of the drugs and failed to preserve an unbroken chain of custody (30+ hour unexplained gap and loss of the original sacks). On a maximum evaluation of the evidence the court was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore no prima facie case was made out and the accused was released and discharged without being called to enter his defence.
27 Aug 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Izalina binti Abdullah (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Kee Loon & Encik Low Wei Loke (Tetuan Low)

Citation

WA-45A-9-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-9-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove that the statutory caution required by s.37B DDA was administered after the accused was placed under arrest, rendering his subsequent statements and conduct inadmissible; combined with the court’s refusal to admit the car owner’s statement under s.32(1)(i) and the absence of direct evidence establishing the accused’s knowledge and possession of the drugs (and inability to rely on s.37(d)), the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case for trafficking under s.39B(1) DDA and the accused was acquitted.