Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prima facie test at close of prosecution case

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-95-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-95-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on each count: for s.409 the dishonest/curious element was not proven because withdrawals were shown to fund company commitments and recipients confirmed payment; for s.468 prosecution failed to prove the cheques were forged by the accused because handwriting expert evidence was internally inconsistent and there was no direct evidence linking accused to forgery; for AMLA s.4(1)(b) prosecution failed to prove predicate unlawful proceeds and accused's knowledge/suspicion. Consequently the court was not prepared to convict on the totality of pro…
30 Oct 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MUHAMMAD TAMRIN BIN TALIB

Citation

CB-62D-278-10/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CB-62D-278-10/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the prosecution had adduced a prima facie case: the statutory presumption under section 37(k) ADB 1952 combined with credible evidential continuity from sample collection to laboratory confirmation of amphetamine and methamphetamine (P4) satisfied all elements; procedural non‑compliance with PTKPN F103, failure to produce all negative test strips or the physical bottle did not create reasonable doubt and did not break the chain of custody; accused elected to remain silent and thus failed to rebut the presumption; conviction under section 15(1)(a) read with section 39C(1) ADB 1…
20 May 2025

[ ] 1. ) THIRUMURUGAN A/L MUTIAH 2. ) VASANTHAN A/L VEERAMOHAN 3. ) THURAIRAJU A/L GANESON 4. ) RAGU VELAN A/L MASANAM 5. ) LOGESWARAN A/L MANICKAM

Citation

BA-45B-34-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45B-34-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence shows failure to prove essential ingredients of the offence (other than identity of deceased): time/place of death per amended charge not established; eyewitness evidence is inconsistent and uncorroborated; no forensic/DNA linkage to accused; circumstantial evidence not irresistible to infer mens rea or common intention. Consequently no prima facie case — accused discharged and acquitted.
14 Feb 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] ARMIE AZUAN BIN SUHAIMI

Citation

CB-83D-555-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-555-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution had proven ownership, control and knowledge of the seized drugs and maintained an unbroken chain of custody; discrepancies in recorded gross weight and absence of fingerprint/nail evidence did not undermine identity or continuity of exhibits; defence explanation was mere denial and failed to raise a reasonable doubt, therefore conviction on all three counts followed.
22 Jan 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MUHAMMAD SUBRI BIN ZAKARIA

Citation

CB-82-9-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-82-9-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence and credibility findings the court concluded the complainant sustained injuries corroborated by medical report, the accused's act of pushing was a conscious aggressive act from which knowledge that it could cause hurt could be inferred, provocation was not grave and sudden, parties were married so s.326A applied; defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction entered under s.323 read with s.326A and sentence imposed.
20 Nov 2024

MOHD RODI BIN JUSOH

Citation

TB-83D-195-02/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TB-83D-195-02/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because, despite chemical proof of drug type and quantity, it did not prove defendant's control or knowledge: material inconsistencies in police testimony about who found the drugs, evidence of access by others to the location, absence of forensic linkage to the accused, and inadequate investigation to exclude alternative access; consequently the accused is entitled to acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.
26 May 2022

Mohamad Shafie Bin Abdul Rani [ ]

Citation

AA-42JSKS(A)-1-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

AA-42JSKS(A)-1-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Sessions Court because the trial judge's findings that the complainant's consistent oral testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence (SP3 and SP7) and witness SP6 were entitled to deference; the charges, although not specifying an exact date, were not defective given clear time/place particulars; no legal requirement for corroboration in sexual offence convictions where complainant is credible; and sentences were within judicial discretion.
13 Jan 2022

PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) AZHARI BIN MUHAMMAD NUR 2. ) MAZRULHISHAM

Citation

PA-45A-48-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-45A-48-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie that either accused had the necessary control, custody or knowledge of the seized drugs or that they shared a common intention under section 34; material gaps included uncertainty who last had the vehicle, insufficient duration/exclusive access by accused, unreliable inference from passport and lack of fingerprint/DNA linking the accused to the drug-containing bags; accordingly no prima facie case and accused are discharged and acquitted.
22 Oct 2021

PENDAKWARAYA INSPEKTOR MUHAIMIN BIN ABD KADIR PEGAWAI PENDAKWA TRAFIK KEMUDIAN DIKENDALIKAN OLEH; PUAN SITI NUR AMALINA BINTI HARUN BERSAMA PUAN ESTHER JACYNTHA A/P MONYARPRAM TIMBALAN NOR AZMAN BIN MAT SALLEH

Citation

AA-83-1295-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-83-1295-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s44(1A)(a) because statutory procedure in s45C(5) for deciding blood versus urine was not complied with and material gaps in the chain of custody, labelling and handling of blood specimens undermined the reliability of the chemical report; prosecution also failed to prove that detected drugs caused inability to control the vehicle. Benefit of doubt given to accused.
14 Jul 2021

PENDAKWARAYA MUHAMMAD NAZRI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN NG PEI VEN

Citation

PC83-278-03/2017 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PC83-278-03/2017 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found prosecution proved identity of the driver (Ng Pei Ven) and deceased, proved the accused drove against traffic on a three-lane carriageway for some 6–7 km at high speed, that the manner of driving amounted to 'reckless' driving under s.41(1) RTA 1987, and that those acts caused the death; defence account was inconsistent and amounted to afterthought; prima facie case established and, after full trial, guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt leading to conviction and sentence under s.41(1).