Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption under section 37(k)

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

NOOR ADZELIE FARIEQ BIN MOHAMAD

Citation

WA-82D-95-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-82D-95-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found prosecution proved both elements of section 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952: that the defendant administered/consumed dangerous drugs and that the substances are listed under the First Schedule; procedures under Section 31A were complied with, chain of custody and specimen identity were preserved, Section 37(k) presumption was triggered and defence failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; conviction accordingly followed and sentence imposed.
21 Oct 2024

AZRUL ASYRAFF BIN AZALAN

Citation

JH-82D-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JH-82D-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Defence failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) on the balance of probabilities; material prosecution evidence (including SD4's confirmation of standard issued urine bottles and lack of challenge at trial) showed no break in procedure and defence assertions were afterthoughts; therefore the accused is rightly convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the imposed sentence of fine RM4,000 (or 12 months imprisonment), two years supervision and reporting requirement is appropriate.
29 Mar 2024

MUHAMAD MUDZAMIR BIN MAZELAN

Citation

BA-41LB(A)-5-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

BA-41LB(A)-5-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts the respondent was constructively arrested before providing the urine specimen; the Magistrate erred in finding non-compliance with s31A and in concluding defence raised reasonable doubt; appeal allowed and conviction entered.
8 Dec 2022

AMIERUL MUKMIN BIN BAHARI

Citation

JA-82D-34-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-82D-34-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found prosecution proved chain of custody and Section 31A compliance; laboratory analysis (P9) confirmed scheduled drugs in the accused's urine; the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities because the accused's denial and vape contamination claim were uncorroborated; therefore accused guilty under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and convicted.

Malaysia Case Law

NOOR ADZELIE FARIEQ BIN MOHAMAD

AZRUL ASYRAFF BIN AZALAN

MUHAMAD MUDZAMIR BIN MAZELAN

AMIERUL MUKMIN BIN BAHARI