Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Presumptions of law

  • 19 Nov 2025

    [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOKTHAR BIN SAMOH

    Citation
    CB-45-7-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CB-45-7-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because evidence did not establish that the accused had possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs: the stor was accessible to others, the accused had permission merely to rest, there was no evidence of exclusive control (keys, exclusive occupancy, fingerprints or DNA) and thus the statutory presumption of trafficking could not be invoked despite drug weights; therefore the accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.

  • 28 Jul 2024

    [ ] Mohammad Zulfikar Supiyandi Bin Kasmin

    Citation
    JA-45A-12-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-45A-12-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the proven facts — SP4's credible consistent testimony, identification of the backpack and package, uninterrupted chain of custody to analysis confirming 549.68g methamphetamine, and failure by accused to rebut the s.37(da) presumption on the balance of probabilities — possession, knowledge and trafficking were established; conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and twelve strokes were appropriate and lawful.

  • 24 Jan 2024

    SAMUDIN BIN KAMBALI

    Citation
    JA-62R-15-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    JA-62R-15-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case on both required ingredients: (1) there was insufficient and unreliable evidence to establish that the accused corruptly gave RM45,000 to the police officer; and (2) the inducement to forbear acting was not proven. Material contradictions between key witnesses, an unexplained evidential gap (failure to call the club manager/owner), admissions by the principal witness that supported the defence and lack of corroborative evidence created reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused was acquitted and discharged.

  • 30 Mar 2022

    MOHD SHARIZAL BIN AZIZ

    Citation
    NA-45-2-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    NA-45-2-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found the drugs were in the belt pouch worn by the accused establishing physical possession and inferred knowledge from the large packed volume, presence of the accused's trial date card in the same pouch and his panicked reaction; chain of custody and processing were adequately proven; the statutory presumption of trafficking applied to the heroin/monoacetylmorphines and the defence evidence failed to raise a reasonable doubt, warranting conviction for trafficking and possession and imposition of the prescribed sentences.

  • 8 Jan 2020

    1. ) QUI JIERU 2. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ) QUI JIERU

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-33-01/2019 & B-05(H)-620-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-33-01/2019 & B-05(H)-620-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Court affirmed conviction because appellant was willfully blind and failed to rebut statutory presumption of possession under s.37(d); her purported Alcontara notice lacked sufficient particulars and did not trigger investigative obligations; trial judge did not apply double presumptions; s.39B(2A)(d) was not satisfied so life sentence was inappropriate and substituted with death penalty.

  • 18 Nov 2019

    1. Mogan Raj a/l Ravi 2. Shankar a/l Muthusamy

    Citation
    W-05(M)-431-09/2017, W-05(M)-434-09/2017, W-05(M)-435-09/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    W-05(M)-431-09/2017, W-05(M)-434-09/2017, W-05(M)-435-09/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The double presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Act used to secure trafficking convictions were unconstitutional; accordingly trafficking convictions were set aside and substituted with possession offences under section 6 DDA, but the trial evidence (credible police testimony, possession of keys, documents, DNA and conduct of accused) sufficiently proved possession of drugs and firearms so convictions under possession/offending firearms provisions and related sentences were upheld or adjusted by the Court of Appeal.

  • 14 Oct 2019

    Chukwudi Sunday Okoye (W/Nigeria No. PasportK H 7373795)

    Citation
    B-05(M)-246-06/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-246-06/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Appellate court upheld conviction because the trial judge correctly found actual possession based on x‑ray evidence and contemporaneous extraction of 56 marked capsules observed by sentry witnesses, continuous chain of custody corroborated by photographs and documentation, and chemist's analysis confirming 496.1g methamphetamine; therefore no error in applying legal principles, and the challenges on knowledge, custody gaps, weight discrepancy, invocation of s.114(g) and alleged mixing lacked merit.