Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption under s37(k) dda

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2025

ARPAISAN BIN ARFA

Citation

AG-82D-1-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AG-82D-1-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the essential precondition that the accused was arrested (actual or constructive) prior to the urine test as required by s31A DDA; because this foundational fact was not established and reasonable inferences favoured the accused, the court found no prima facie case and discharged the accused at the close of the prosecution case.
19 Aug 2025

YUSMAN BIN TINI

Citation

AI-82D-4-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AI-82D-4-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Having evaluated witness testimony, exhibits and authorities, the court held prosecution proved both offences beyond reasonable doubt: laboratory reports and corroborating witness evidence established presence of methamphetamine; defects or omissions in procedure (including non-compliance with s31A and missing ancillary documents/exhibits) were not fatal in light of case law and explanations tendered; presumption under s37(k) applied and defence failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; accordingly accused convicted on both counts and sentenced.
25 Jun 2025

MOHAMAD HAFIZI BIN SAAD

Citation

JA-82D-19-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-82D-19-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to satisfy statutory preconditions of s31A DDA (arrest occurred only after screening) so the s37(k) presumption could not be relied upon; material inconsistencies and gaps in the chain of custody, discrepancies in seals, volume and witness testimony undermined the identity and reliability of the urine sample and the credibility of prosecution witnesses; on maximum evaluation no prima facie case was established, therefore the accused was acquitted and discharged.
27 Sept 2023

MUHAMAD SAIFUDDIN BIN CHE ANAWA

Citation

JA-82D-42-08/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-82D-42-08/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although the prosecution established a prima facie case with an unbroken chain of custody and positive laboratory results for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine under s31A and s37(k), the defence produced credible corroborative evidence (witness testimony of drink tampering and contemporaneous statements) that raised a reasonable doubt and rebutted the statutory presumption; failure of the police to investigate that defence materially prejudiced the accused, therefore the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is acquitted.
19 Oct 2022

MOHAMAD FADHILAH BIN BANTUT [ ]

Citation

AA-41S(A)-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

AA-41S(A)-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the single urine sample was inadmissible where presumptive screening and confirmatory testing occurred at different locations without collection of a duplicate sample as required by the procedural safeguards in the MOH Guideline and as read with IGSO F103; the Prosecution therefore failed to make out a prima facie case and the conviction was unsafe, compounded by additional evidential discrepancies, and the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant acquitted.
27 Oct 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Izalina binti Abdullah Timbalan Pendakwaraya (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Nasar Khan bin Mirbas Khan, Encik Mu'az Al-Awwal bin Mohammad Zafarullah & Encik Anuar Kasyaf bin Md Yusof (Tetuan Mazwan Dee Nasar & Shima) Dato'

Citation

WA-41S-34-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-41S-34-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held IGSO F103 and KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002 have the force of law for the purposes of urine sampling in drug prosecutions; failure to take two bottles and thereby deny a confirmatory test breached procedural rights, undermined sample integrity and the prosecution's ability to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt (especially given s37(k) presumption), rendering the conviction unsafe and requiring acquittal.

Malaysia Case Law

ARPAISAN BIN ARFA

YUSMAN BIN TINI

MOHAMAD HAFIZI BIN SAAD

MUHAMAD SAIFUDDIN BIN CHE ANAWA

MOHAMAD FADHILAH BIN BANTUT [ ]

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Izalina binti Abdullah Timbalan Pendakwaraya (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Nasar Khan bin Mirbas Khan, Encik Mu'az Al-Awwal bin Mohammad Zafarullah & Encik Anuar Kasyaf bin Md Yusof (Tetuan Mazwan Dee Nasar & Shima) Dato'