Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of controlled drugs

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2026

ANTHONY A/L SINNASAMY

Citation

BA-45A-99-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-99-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prosecution established a prima facie case for possession under section 6 DDA (invoking presumption of knowledge under s37(d) and s8 inferences) because chain of custody and identity of exhibits were sufficiently proven and the accused had custody and control of the vehicle and access to the bag; prosecution failed to prove the element of distribution/trafficking under section 2 and therefore the original trafficking charge under s39B was amended to possession under s6 and the accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly.
12 Feb 2026

MOHD HELMI BIN ISHAK

Citation

RA-83D-1051-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

RA-83D-1051-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved identity of controlled substances by chemist report, established continuous chain of custody and credible witness evidence that the sling bag containing the drugs was on accused; statutory presumption of possession applied and accused failed to raise reasonable doubt about custody, control or knowledge; therefore guilt established beyond reasonable doubt on all three counts.
5 Feb 2026

1. ) SYED AHMAD FAKHRUL AIMAN BIN TUAN BARU 2. ) MOHAMAD AMIRUL ZEESHAAN BIN RANAMUZAFFAR ALI

Citation

BA-83D-4306-10/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-83D-4306-10/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held that s.173A conditional discharge was not appropriate given the seriousness and prevalence of drug offences, the defendant's maturity (21 years) and status as a law student (heightened responsibility), and that public interest and deterrence outweighed mitigation; accordingly the defendant was convicted under s.6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with s.34 Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of RM3500 or default 6 months imprisonment, with bail refunded and exhibits to be disposed by prosecution.
19 Jan 2026

1. ) NUR LIYANA NADIA BINTI ROSLI 2. ) MOHAMMAD IZZUDDIN SAFWAN BIN MOHAMMAD RADZIF

Citation

KB-45A-14-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KB-45A-14-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender status, personal circumstances) but held the quantity of methamphetamine (53.64g) exceeded the statutory threshold and public interest required a deterrent sentence; applying precedents and sentencing trends the court imposed nine years’ imprisonment each, exempted caning for the female accused and imposed ten strokes on the male accused.
7 Jan 2026

KHAIRUL IZZUDDIN BIN A RODZI

Citation

JF-83D-524-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JF-83D-524-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved identity of the substance as methamphetamine (8.20g) by credible chemist evidence and maintained an unbroken chain of custody; eyewitness evidence placed the exhibit in the accused's right front pocket and supported inference of control and knowledge; contradictions in prosecution testimony were minor and not material; defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt or provide sufficient Alcontara particulars; accordingly accused was guilty under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and duly sentenced to 30 months imprisonment and three strokes.
19 Dec 2025

1. ) WONG FOOK LOY 2. ) WIN MIN HLIANG 3. ) KAUNG MYAT PHYOE 4. ) LOONG CHAN YOW 5. ) CHAI CHOON FOO

Citation

JA-45A-38-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-38-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted guilty pleas and facts but, given the very large quantity of MDMA (7,982.05g), the paramount public interest and sentencing trends, the mitigation did not outweigh the need for deterrence; therefore imposed a substantial custodial term (12 years from date of arrest) and mandated 10 strokes for the selected count with additional concurrent terms for the ancillary counts, and ordered acquittal of co-accused where prosecution withdrew charges.
19 Dec 2025

MUHAMAD HARIS BIN MOHMAD JIDIN

Citation

AP-83D-395-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AP-83D-395-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because the prosecution presented two reasonable and conflicting inferences about where bag P15 was taken from, and failed to call or offer the material witness Mohd Zaki or to challenge the investigator's acknowledgment, a reasonable doubt existed and no prima facie case was established; accused must be released at the close of the prosecution case.
19 Nov 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOKTHAR BIN SAMOH

Citation

CB-45A-6-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45A-6-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although chemical analysis established the items were dangerous drugs, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had possession, control and knowledge because the stor was under the house owner's control, accessible to others, contained belongings of others, the accused was present only to rest and lacked exclusive control or keys; in those circumstances proximity alone did not establish possession or trigger the s.37(da) presumption and the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case, so the accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.
24 Oct 2025

MOHD NORISHAM BIN CHE ISMAIL

Citation

CH-83D-716-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CH-83D-716-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because the chain of custody and identity of the seized exhibit were not proved beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies and unexplained gaps in the officers' testimony (failure to mark exhibits at scene, inconsistent accounts of movements and handling); consequently the accused was acquitted and discharged.
9 Oct 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] KHAIRUL ANUAR BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

CB-83D-970-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-970-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Accused pleaded guilty to possession of heroin (0.04g); court applied s173(b) CPC and established sentencing principles, took judicial notice of and verified prior convictions, balanced mitigating factors against aggravation and public interest, and exercised discretion to impose a fine as statutory ordering prescribes; imposed RM10,000 fine with 19 months imprisonment in default and directed evidence to be returned to prosecution for disposal after appeal period.