Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prima facie standard (s.180 cpc)

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD AMINUDDIN BIN MD ARIFFIN 2. ) FIQRI MUSTAQIM BIN ZAKARIA

Citation

BA-45A-132-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-132-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence (chemical analysis, discovery in packed bundles in vehicle under accuseds' control, conduct of accused including flight and refusal to cooperate, corroborative circumstantial factors and recording D29), the court found prosecution proved possession, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt and statutory presumption under s.37(da) ADB 1952 applied; accuseds' defences were implausible and mere denials, therefore convicted under s.39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 read with s.39B(2) and s.34 Penal Code.
21 Jan 2022

KIM KAI SIONG

Citation

AA-45A-11-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-45A-11-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under section 180 CPC because evidence was inconsistent and insufficient to prove exclusive possession and knowledge: contemporaneous documents conflicted with oral testimony, other persons had access to the premises and were not properly investigated or called, and the police investigation was inadequate, producing reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt; accordingly the accused was acquitted and discharged on all charges.
7 Oct 2021

PENDAKWARAYA JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 1. ) NET RAY TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 2. ) CHOOK WAI MUN 3. ) TEE CHOON MING

Citation

BK- 62-9-02/2017, BK-62-10-02/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK- 62-9-02/2017, BK-62-10-02/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court accepted STRIDE expert evidence that the tested ICs met the P.U.(A)60 criteria for strategic goods (STA code 3A001.a.2.c); documentary and witness evidence established Net Ray organised the shipment and no permit existed per MITI; absence of vehicle seizure or additional testing did not create reasonable doubt; directors are liable under s.49 and shared common intention under s.34. Prima facie and beyond-reasonable-doubt threshold satisfied; defendants convicted.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) MOHAMAD AMINUDDIN BIN MD ARIFFIN 2. ) FIQRI MUSTAQIM BIN ZAKARIA

KIM KAI SIONG

PENDAKWARAYA JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 1. ) NET RAY TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 2. ) CHOOK WAI MUN 3. ) TEE CHOON MING