Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prima facie test under s.180 cpc

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2026

RAJA HAMDAN BIN RAJA HAMZAH

Citation

BL-62JSK-10-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-62JSK-10-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.14(a) because material and central inconsistencies existed between the victim's account and supporting witnesses on date/time/place, corroborative electronic evidence was not verified or was absent, investigative gaps (failure to verify venue booking and telco records) and delay in reporting undermined credibility; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to enter defence and he was discharged and acquitted.
12 Dec 2025

ARMAND BIN MOHAMED SUHAIMI

Citation

BA-45A-17-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-17-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation of the prosecution case the court found the prosecution proved identity, possession, knowledge and distribution: accused handed over the bag containing cannabis with his ID, accessed his secured home with fingerprint, retrieved boxes from his bedroom containing cannabis and thus had control and knowledge; statutory presumption for trafficking applied to 466.5g cannabis; accordingly a prima facie case was made out, accused was convicted under s.39B(1)(a) and s.6 ADB 1952 and sentenced.
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-106-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-106-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements: for s.409 the dishonest/misappropriation element was not established; for s.468 prosecution failed to prove the checks were forged by the accused (handwriting expert evidence inconsistent and no direct proof accused forged signatures); for s.4(1)(b) AMLA prosecution failed to prove predicate offences and that accused knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect proceeds were illicit. Therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was lawfully discharged and released without being called to enter defence.
23 Dec 2021

PENDAKWARAYA KHAIROL ANUAR BIN ZAKARIA [KP: 830225-03-5283]

Citation

DA-45A-08-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-45A-08-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the chemist's identification of 1227.9g Cannabis, found the drugs in a room exclusively used by the accused and that the accused's conduct and contemporaneous answers to police (admissible under s.27 Evidence Act) established knowledge and control; because the weight exceeded the statutory threshold the s.37(da)(vi) presumption of trafficking applied and the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities — therefore the prosecution proved the elements of trafficking under s.39B beyond reasonable doubt and conviction and sentence followed under s.39…
25 Nov 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Public Prosecutor YMF Industries Sdn Bhd

Citation

BK-S2-63ES-16-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-S2-63ES-16-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.180 CPC because there was no credible evidence linking YMF Industries to carrying out the prescribed or emission-causing activities at the premises at the material time: occupancy and tenancy were unproven or expired, machines and materials were not seized or proven in chain, no pollution readings or samples, and the investigation was incomplete; accordingly accused acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution's case.

Malaysia Case Law

RAJA HAMDAN BIN RAJA HAMZAH

ARMAND BIN MOHAMED SUHAIMI

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

PENDAKWARAYA KHAIROL ANUAR BIN ZAKARIA [KP: 830225-03-5283]

PENDAKWARAYA Public Prosecutor YMF Industries Sdn Bhd