Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and trafficking

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2025

PANDITHAN A/L THANGARAJOO

Citation

B-05(SH)-600-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-600-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution evidence was overwhelming and established possession, control and knowledge of the drugs by the appellant (including conduct, personal items and appellant leading police to the stor and producing keys), the statutory presumption under s37(d) DDA applied where appropriate, failure to call Khairul Izzane did not amount to withholding or suppression nor cause prejudice, and omission by the trial judge to give an explicit indication at the end of the prosecution case did not produce substantial injustice; therefore convictions and sentences were affirmed.
17 Jul 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD SHABUDIN BIN YUSOFF 2. ) AMIRUL ASRI BIN SHAARI [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

B-05(SH)-380-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-380-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held unanimously that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants had possession, control and knowledge of the Cannabis and acted with common intention to traffic; AP evidence was credible and corroborated by police witnesses and chemical analysis; deficiencies in CCTV, fingerprints or DNA and non-calling of certain passengers did not create material gaps; although the trial judge misstated the burden regarding s.37(da), that error was in favour of the appellants and caused no prejudice; thus convictions and sentences were affirmed.
24 Jan 2022

KONG SENG LONG [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

J-05(M)-177-06/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

J-05(M)-177-06/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court dismissed the appeal because (1) inconsistencies in police reports were satisfactorily explained and did not render information under s27 inadmissible; (2) appellant's conduct in leading, picking up and handing over drugs was admissible under s8 Evidence Act 1950 and is not a 'statement' requiring a s37B caution; (3) evidence established appellant's exclusive occupation and possession of the room and items, excluding reasonable access by others; and (4) there was no fatal break in the chain of custody — thus prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and statutory presumption…
3 Jan 2022

Mohamad Hafizi Bin Zainal Abidin [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

J-05(M)-353-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

J-05(M)-353-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court of Appeal held the trial judge committed a fatal omission by failing to specify at the close of the prosecution which presumption (direct possession/trafficking or statutory presumptions under s.37(d)/s.37(da) DDA) she relied upon; that omission affected the burden on the defence and amounted to a misdirection/non-direction rendering the conviction unsafe, warranting setting aside the conviction and sentence and acquittal on the first charge.
13 Apr 2021

Che Rafizul bin Che Ramli Muhammad Hafizan bin S Bakarrudin Nasution Zahiruan bin Ibrahim Zarina binti Yusof

Citation

WA-45A-7-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-7-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material discrepancies in exhibit weight were unexplained, gaps and contested aspects in identification and chain of custody existed, presence of other unidentified persons and lack of evidence of possession/control or common intention by each accused prevented legitimate inferences of trafficking; accordingly defendants were discharged under the s180 assessment.
29 Aug 2019

TAN KOK LEONG, KRISHNA MOORTHY A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

C-05(M)-535-11/2017 , C-05(M)-536-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

C-05(M)-535-11/2017 , C-05(M)-536-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeals because the trial judge erred by invoking presumptions upon presumptions (stacked application of s.37(d) to invoke s.37(da)), failed to assess primary evidence of knowledge and possession, and the prosecution's failure to call material witnesses (Suresh and Tan Kian Yew) caused serious prejudice; absent those erroneous presumptions and omissions the prosecution did not prove possession and trafficking beyond reasonable doubt, rendering convictions unsafe and requiring acquittal.
26 Apr 2019

NGUYEN VAN TROI

Citation

K-05(M)-243-06/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

K-05(M)-243-06/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the conviction must stand because the prosecution proved appellant had custody and control of the bag containing 2,270.01g methamphetamine, the trial judge properly invoked the s.37(d) presumption of possession and knowledge, and the appellant failed to rebut that presumption or justify the innocent carrier defence on the evidence; carrying the bag from Thailand to Malaysia also established trafficking under s.2.
GUNALAN A/L RAMACHANDRAN & 2 ORS V PENDAKWA RAYA

Citation

GUNALAN A/L RAMACHANDRAN & 2 ORS V PENDAKWA RAYA
Court

Malaysian court

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings of possession and common intention based on the circumstances, held that gaps in the chain of custody were not fatal where the substance analyzed could reasonably be shown to be the recovered substance, and ruled that s.37(j)'s 10% refers to receptacles not weight and there is no statutory requirement to test 10% of total weight — sample quantity is a matter for the chemist; accordingly the convictions and death sentences were affirmed.