Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and ownership

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2026

IDRIS BIN SABU

Citation

KA-45A-53-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-53-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material inconsistencies and unexplained gaps in the chain of custody, significant credibility defects in SP5's evidence, investigative deficiencies by SP9, incomplete CCTV production and evidence suggesting involvement of other persons created reasonable doubt as to identity and possession of the seized drugs; therefore the accused must be acquitted.
19 Jan 2026

AMRAN BIN ABU SEMAN

Citation

KA-45A-55-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-55-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material contradictions and two conflicting versions in the key investigator's evidence, unexplained gaps in the chain of custody, omission of potentially decisive CCTV footage, indications of third‑party involvement (DNA and additional suspects), and inadequate investigation by SP9 created reasonable doubt as to identity, custody and possession of the drugs; therefore the accused must be acquitted.
18 Nov 2025

CHAN CHEAN GAIK ELEGANCE CLUB SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12BNCC-14-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-14-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court affirmed the trial judge's credibility-based factual findings: plaintiff met its burden, consignment notes and conduct established a consignment relationship (including implied consignment), defendant's expert evidence on signatures and gemology was unreliable, there was no persuasive evidence of gifts or fraud, and monetary damages in lieu of return were appropriate; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs ordered.
25 Sept 2025

AIZUDDIN BIN AZIZAN [ ]

Citation

W-05(SH)-313-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-313-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings that (1) SP4 was a credible witness whose testimony was corroborated by contemporaneous documents (P38, P35); (2) the chain of custody of the seized cannabis was not broken and identity of exhibits was established; (3) appellants failed, on balance of probabilities, to rebut the statutory presumption of possession/trafficking under section 37(da)(vi); accordingly convictions and sentences were safe and were affirmed.
9 Jun 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] ZUNAIDI BIN ISMAIL

Citation

CB-83D-231-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-231-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution established control and custody of the seized drugs (found in a bag within reach beside defendant), continuity of custody to chemical analysis proving the drugs and weights, and applicable presumptions under ADB s37(d); defence explanations were disbelieved or impeached and did not raise a reasonable doubt, therefore guilty verdicts were entered and sentences imposed.
12 Dec 2024

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) TEE GUO HUI 2. ) BERNARD LEAN GUAN JIET 3. ) GOH HOE CHONG

Citation

WA-45-10-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45-10-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved identity and chain of custody of seized drugs; statutory presumptions applied. On the facts prosecution established prima facie possession and distribution against OKT3 for the first charge and against OKT1 and OKT3 for the second charge. After defence, court found reasonable doubt as to OKT1's knowledge and control and acquitted him; OKT2 had no evidence of possession and was discharged; OKT3 failed to rebut presumptions and was convicted under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes.
16 Oct 2023

[ ] Moh Noor Bin Jusoh

Citation

DI-83RS-26-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DI-83RS-26-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the essential element of dishonest intention/mens rea; evidence of temporary title, payments and absence of notice withdrawing accused's rights created reasonable doubt and no prima facie case was established, therefore accused must be acquitted at the close of the prosecution's case.
17 Mar 2020

PENDAKWARAYA NORBAYANI MUHAMMAD SHAHRIL BIN ABDUL KADIR

Citation

DA-83-2020-04/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83-2020-04/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to discharge burden of proving possession/ownership and a prima facie case because of material evidential gaps: absence of testimony from potentially relevant shop staff and officer Asmanizam, inconsistencies in police reporting, and lack of proof of accused's control; statutory presumption s.135(2) cannot be invoked where the prosecution case is defective; benefit of doubt therefore goes to accused and he is acquitted.