Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumptions under dangerous drugs act 1952

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2025

[ ] AMIRUL ASYRAF BIN ABDUL RAZAK

Citation

KA-45A-28-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-28-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had actual possession, control and knowledge of the drugs found in his locked room based on observation, discovery of paraphernalia and accused's conduct; chemist's analysis reliably identified heroin (110.6g) and monoacetylmorphines (42.3g) and sampling/chain issues raised by defence did not undermine findings; presumptions of distribution under perenggan 37(da)(i) and (iii) ADB 1952 applied; failure to call lab assistants did not justify adverse inference; distinct drugs justified separate charges; accordingly accused convicted on both…
14 Jul 2025

MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

Citation

B-05(SH)-350-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-350-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the conviction safe because prosecution proved that the appellant had control, custody and knowledge of the drugs by credible circumstantial evidence (drugs in bag held by appellant, vehicle registered to him, keys and personal items found), the innocent carrier defence was not established and the failure to call the co-occupant was not a material non-production that would invoke s.114(g); absence of fingerprint/DNA evidence did not create reasonable doubt given the totality of evidence.
18 Apr 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD YASIN BIN MOHAMAD ALIMIYA 2. ) HASHIM YUNUS

Citation

BA-45A-87-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-87-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence established continuity of observation, seizure and chemical analysis; proximity, conduct (OKT1 carrying paper bags into Honda), placement of packages and access to vehicles established custody, control and knowledge for each accused; weight of drugs invoked statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da); common intention under s34 proved for OKT1 and OKT2 from circumstantial evidence; defence explanations (including alleged third party 'Anei') were rejected as unreliable or unsupported; accordingly conviction was warranted and sentence imposed as…
11 Sept 2024

1. ) YAGAMBARAM CHETTIAR A/L KAPOORAM 2. ) MUTHUBAL LATHA 3. ) LOGESWARAN A/L YAGAMBARAM CHETTIAR

Citation

AA-45A-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-45A-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on maximum evaluation because it did not prove exclusive possession or control, knowledge of the drugs by the accused, or joint intent under s.34; investigative contradictions and failure to exclude other persons with access (uninvestigated vehicles, unrecorded witnesses, inconsistent seizure evidence) rendered the statutory presumptions rebutted or insufficient to warrant calling the accused to enter defence. Therefore accused discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution.
26 Mar 2024

TAI HUN CHEAN

Citation

BA-45A-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found prosecution evidence credible and sufficient to prove possession, control and knowledge of 3,171g methamphetamine; statutory presumption of distribution (s37(da)(xvi) ADB 1952) applied because weight exceeded threshold and the accused failed to raise a reasonable doubt or discharge the burden under s106; accordingly conviction and sentencing were justified.
29 Aug 2019

TAN KOK LEONG, KRISHNA MOORTHY A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

C-05(M)-535-11/2017 , C-05(M)-536-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

C-05(M)-535-11/2017 , C-05(M)-536-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeals because the trial judge erred by invoking presumptions upon presumptions (stacked application of s.37(d) to invoke s.37(da)), failed to assess primary evidence of knowledge and possession, and the prosecution's failure to call material witnesses (Suresh and Tan Kian Yew) caused serious prejudice; absent those erroneous presumptions and omissions the prosecution did not prove possession and trafficking beyond reasonable doubt, rendering convictions unsafe and requiring acquittal.
25 Oct 2018

FATEMEH ANSARI MOOSA

Citation

B-05(M)-579-12/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-579-12/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the prosecution proved possession with knowledge and elements of trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; the trial judge properly rejected the innocent carrier defence after assessing credibility and facts, and there was no misdirection or error warranting appellate interference, therefore conviction and death sentence were affirmed.

Malaysia Case Law

[ ] AMIRUL ASYRAF BIN ABDUL RAZAK

MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

1. ) MOHAMAD YASIN BIN MOHAMAD ALIMIYA 2. ) HASHIM YUNUS

1. ) YAGAMBARAM CHETTIAR A/L KAPOORAM 2. ) MUTHUBAL LATHA 3. ) LOGESWARAN A/L YAGAMBARAM CHETTIAR

TAI HUN CHEAN

TAN KOK LEONG, KRISHNA MOORTHY A/L MUNIANDY

FATEMEH ANSARI MOOSA