Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption of possession (s37(d) dda)

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2026

ABDUL HAKAM BIN ABDUL HARIS

Citation

TF-83D-256-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TF-83D-256-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Material and unexplained contradictions between prosecution witnesses (police) and SP7 about whether the green plastic (P5) was in the accused's hand, combined with lack of independent forensic corroboration and viable alternative inferences, meant prosecution failed to prove custody/control, possession and knowledge to the requisite prima facie standard; accused must be discharged.
24 Feb 2025

ZALI BIN HITAM

Citation

TE-83D-181-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TE-83D-181-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution proved all elements of the offence under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentencing provision s39A(1): chemical analysis established the substance as methamphetamine totalling 25.26g; the accused had custody/control and knowledge as drugs were found in a locked storeroom to which only he held the key, he produced the bag upon police questioning and spouse corroborated storeroom usage; defence explanation of a third party was unproven and inconsistent, failed to raise a reasonable doubt; statutory presumptions (s37(d) DDA and s114 Evidence Act) and case law supported…
2 Mar 2022

Mohd Sabri Bin Yahaya [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-537-11/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-537-11/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the conviction for possession in respect of the Proton Wira is sustainable notwithstanding the improper admission of SP6's statement because possession was proved independently of that statement by primary facts establishing custody and control (key seized from appellant, appellant guided police to the car, identification of appellant in relation to the car via Astro bill, and SP4's evidence that the car was not functional). Under s167 Evidence Act the improper admission did not occasion a failure of justice; ownership of the car is immaterial to possession findings.
8 Sept 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Mehrdad Rahmati Yadollah (IRN) Amin Rereydounisl Mirza (IRN) Mehrdad Rahmati Yadollah (IRN) Amin Fereydounisl Mirza (IRN)

Citation

B-05(H)-378-07/2018 dan B-05(SH)-567-12/2019 (Majority Judgment of The Court) (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

B-05(H)-378-07/2018 dan B-05(SH)-567-12/2019 (Majority Judgment of The Court) (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed convictions because prosecution proved custody and control of bags containing concealed large quantities of methamphetamine (supported by DNA and name tag), properly invoking the presumption under s37(d) and establishing trafficking under s2; however the trial judge erred in imposing life imprisonment because the mandatory statutory preconditions in s39B(2A), specifically paragraph (d) (assistance to enforcement, evidenced by certification), were not satisfied, so the appellate court substituted the sentence with death for both appellants.

Malaysia Case Law

ABDUL HAKAM BIN ABDUL HARIS

ZALI BIN HITAM

Mohd Sabri Bin Yahaya [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

PENDAKWARAYA Mehrdad Rahmati Yadollah (IRN) Amin Rereydounisl Mirza (IRN) Mehrdad Rahmati Yadollah (IRN) Amin Fereydounisl Mirza (IRN)