Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption of trafficking

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2026

SUGAN A/L SIVARAMAN

Citation

BA-45A-28-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-28-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because (1) although the seized material was proven cannabis, there was reasonable doubt as to custody, control, ownership and knowledge given credible evidence of a third party's presence and access, conflicting narratives and lack of corroborative witnesses to rebut the defence; therefore the statutory presumption under s37(da)(vi) did not arise and the accused must be released without being called to enter defence.
8 Jan 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHD YUSRI BIN JUSOH

Citation

WA-45A-66-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-66-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conviction rests on the accused's exclusive control of the vehicle and its contents (keys/access card and personal items), the substantial quantity of cannabis triggering the statutory presumption of trafficking which the accused failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities, credible prosecution evidence including unbroken chain of custody and chemical analysis, and the application of wilful blindness to attribute knowledge where the accused deliberately refrained from inquiry; these facts satisfy proof beyond reasonable doubt for s39B(1)(a) DDA.
15 Dec 2025

MOHAMAD RASHID BIN SAHUTI

Citation

BA-45A-159-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-159-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution proved identity of the drugs, possession and knowledge by linking the sling bag containing cannabis and the accused's identity card to the accused; the weight invoked the statutory presumption of trafficking which the accused failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; non‑calling of the investigating officer was justified by medical evidence and did not merit adverse inference; accordingly conviction under s39B(1)(a) DDA is warranted.
8 Dec 2025

MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

B-05(SH)-101-03/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-101-03/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The conviction was unsafe because the trial court misapplied the burden of proof and failed to give adequate judicial appreciation to SD2's corroborating evidence and to investigative gaps; the defence raised a reasonable doubt as to knowledge and possession, warranting acquittal and discharge.
28 Nov 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MOHD NAZRI BIN MOHD NORAZMI SEGAR 2. ) ZULSAHFARIN BIN MUHD YUSOF 3. ) MOHD ZULKIFLI BIN AZMI

Citation

WA-45A-95-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-95-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie that OKT 2 and OKT 3 had mens rea possession or exclusive control of the 4,790.1 grams of cannabis because keys and indicia of control were linked to the deceased, DNA evidence excluded them from primary items, only a cigarette butt linked them to presence, another occupant was not investigated, and material evidential gaps and chain of custody issues meant the presumption of trafficking could not be invoked; therefore they must be acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.
1 Oct 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMAD AZLAN BIN RAMLI 2. ) MUHAMAD FARISYA FADLY BIN YAHAYA

Citation

WA-45A-15-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-15-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking on the balance of probabilities by providing a probable, consistent innocent carrier explanation, compounded by prosecution's failure to call material witnesses; prosecution failed to adduce direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence of actual knowledge or exclusive possession, therefore guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused must be acquitted.
10 Sept 2025

ISLAM RABEA MOHAMED ISMAIL ELBANNA [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-22-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-22-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the first charge: prosecution offered the material witness Fathe but failed to secure his attendance or produce his recorded statement, and the trial judge failed to properly evaluate defence evidence (SD2 and the appellant's cautioned statement) in breach of the duty to consider all evidence under s182A CPC; those failures prejudiced the defence and rendered the conviction unsafe, so the presumption of trafficking was rebutted on the balance of probabilities and the conviction and sentence for the first charge were quashed and the appellant acquitted…
21 Aug 2025

GEOFFERY EZEOBI

Citation

WA-45A-44-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-44-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prosecution proved mens rea possession of 375.8g meth beyond reasonable doubt, invoked statutory presumption of trafficking, held defence failed to rebut the presumption on balance of probabilities; wilful blindness and compelling circumstantial evidence (false identities, communications with Hong Kong contact, high postage, concealment) established knowledge and intent to traffic, thus convicting the accused under s39B(1)(a) DDA and sentencing under s39B(2).
21 Aug 2025

GEOFFERY EZEOBI

Citation

WA-45A-44-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-44-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found prosecution established mens rea possession of 375.8 g meth and invoked the statutory presumption of trafficking; the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities and wilful blindness and circumstantial evidence (false identities, communications with Hong Kong contact, conduct at courier) established guilty knowledge; minor evidential inconsistencies were insignificant and conviction followed.
7 Aug 2025

Calvin Low Chan Hoe [ ]

Citation

S-05(SH)-478-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

S-05(SH)-478-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the High Court conviction because the prosecution proved the appellant was in actual possession of parcels containing 3,448.1g methamphetamine, the chain of custody was intact, the appellant's conduct (false name, agitation) and circumstances permitted an inference of knowledge, and the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) was not rebutted on balance of probabilities; failures to investigate others or obtain phone/CCTV evidence were immaterial to guilt.