Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of drugs

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2026

[TIMBALAN ] Cheng Sim Chen (Zheng Xincheng)

Citation

JA-45A-19-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-19-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove possession, knowledge or an unbroken chain of custody for the seized packages and failed to discharge the burden under s180 CPC; material discrepancies and missing investigatory evidence created reasonable doubt, so no prima facie case existed and all accused were acquitted and discharged without being called to enter their defence.
24 Feb 2026

MOHD FAKHRULRAZI BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

JJ-83D-7-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JJ-83D-7-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Laboratory evidence established the seized items as methamphetamine (16.53g) and etizolam (0.88g) with an unbroken chain of custody; accused was the sole occupier/person in control of the locked room and safe (knew password and held key) and therefore had possession and knowledge of the drugs; defence explanations failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (punishable under s39A(1)) and s30(3) Poisons Act 1952 warranted; sentencing followed statutory minima and court discretion.
13 Feb 2026

BASHKERAN A/L SALLIAH

Citation

M-05(SH)-217-05/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

M-05(SH)-217-05/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution proved possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt; the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) ADB 1952 on the balance of probabilities; non-production of CCTV and non-called peripheral witnesses were not material or shown to be withheld with improper motive; the High Court's factual findings and credibility assessments were proper and are upheld.
5 Jan 2026

CHEW LENG SOON

Citation

J-05(SH)-71-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

J-05(SH)-71-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the trial judge: credible eyewitness evidence that appellant entered alone, was carrying the plastic later found to contain methamphetamine matching drugs in a locked room which appellant identified by key, established possession and knowledge; given the large quantities the statutory presumption under s.37(da) ADB applied and the appellant failed to rebut it on balance of probabilities, therefore convictions and sentences are affirmed.
15 Oct 2025

Ranjith Singh A/l Mahindar Singh [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

K-05(SH)-427-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

K-05(SH)-427-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The conviction was upheld because credible, consistent testimony of the arresting and investigating officers, corroborated by contemporaneous documents, established that the appellant had physical custody of a jacket-wrapped container holding 224.8g methamphetamine outside house No.28 and that the appellant had knowledge of the drug; minor sketch inconsistencies were immaterial and the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) on the balance of probabilities.
10 Oct 2025

YAZID BIN ABDUL RANI

Citation

AJ-83D-77-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-83D-77-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the element of possession because it did not exclude access by others to the location where the drugs were found, did not investigate or produce persons known to frequent the premises, and provided no nexus such as fingerprints or incriminating circumstances linking the drugs to the accused; therefore no prima facie case was established and the accused must be acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.
4 Sept 2025

MOHD SOBRI BIN ABU BAKAR

Citation

KA-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found that prosecution evidence established physical control of the vehicle by the accused at and before arrest and, by inference from circumstances and accused's conduct, the mental element of knowledge. Chemical analysis confirmed the quantities alleged and the statutory presumption of distribution for heroin exceeding 15g was properly raised and not rebutted on the balance of probabilities. Defence assertions of third‑party ownership and borrowing were determined to be afterthoughts, unsupported and implausible. Accordingly the prosecution proved the offences beyond reasonab…
27 Aug 2025

[ ] 1. ) MUHAMMAD SYAFI AIMAN BIN ZULKIFLE 2. ) MOHAMMAD ZAAIEN BIN MOHD RAFI 3. ) CHE MOHAMMAD ASRI BIN CHE MAT RANI

Citation

DF-83D-102-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DF-83D-102-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court accepted chemical analysis establishing status of seized items as Mitragynine and Diphenhydramine but held prosecution failed to prove ownership/possession and joint intention because key arresting officers were not called, identification was unreliable given heavy rain and darkness, premises were open and accessible to others, and investigative gaps including inadequate probing of alibi created reasonable doubt; accordingly no prima facie case and accused discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution case.
20 Aug 2025

[ ] Che Hashim Bin Mohd Zulkifli

Citation

DA-83D-517-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83D-517-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had effective control and custody of the car containing the seized packages and therefore, applying section 37(d) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation or rebuttal on the balance of probabilities, the accused was found to have possession and knowledge of the methamphetamine; adverse inference under s114(g) did not arise and the chain of custody was intact, leading to conviction and sentence of imprisonment and whipping.
19 May 2025

Julasiri Bin Akilmara [ ]

Citation

S-05(SH)-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

S-05(SH)-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Failure of the High Court to make a clear finding and inform the appellant whether he had to answer actual or presumed trafficking under Section 37(da) DDA 1952 amounted to a miscarriage of justice; therefore the conviction for trafficking under s39B(1)(a) was unsafe and was set aside and substituted with a conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA 1952, with sentence adjusted accordingly.