Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Search and seizure

  • 22 Feb 2026

    LIM TYAN IT

    Citation
    KB-45A-18-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KB-45A-18-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because, although identity and chain of custody of the drug were proven by chemist and prosecution witnesses, material and unresolved contradictions about the location and circumstances of arrest (roadside versus inside house), the existence and seizure of the accused's vehicle, and the prosecution's failure to call a material witness (ASP Vickneswaran) entitled to an adverse inference under s.114(g) created reasonable doubt on possession; therefore accused discharged without being called to enter defence.

  • 22 Feb 2026

    [ ] 1. ) NOOR NAZMI BIN NAWI 2. ) MUHAMMAD HAMDEE BIN CHE HASHIM

    Citation
    DA-45-12-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-45-12-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to establish prima facie every essential element for the charged offences because (a) identity/chain of custody of drug and poison exhibits was seriously in doubt due to discrepant markings and lack of explanation, (b) prosecution did not prove accused had custody, control or dominion over the drugs, vehicle or premises and failed to exclude third‑party access, (c) evidence of common intention was absent; accordingly accused could not safely be called to enter defence and were discharged.

  • 5 Feb 2026

    NG SING HUAT

    Citation
    WA-62ES-1-03/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    WA-62ES-1-03/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court found prosecution proved all elements of s.68(1)(b) Akta 716 by maximum evaluation: (a) the tiger skin (Panthera tigris) was found in the accused's unit and properly identified by certified expert; (b) accused was a resident/occupant with control/access as evidenced by keys, utility documents and witness testimony, triggering the statutory presumption of possession under s.58; (c) no special permit existed; (d) defence evidence was bare denial and failed to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities or call material witnesses, permitting adverse inference under s.114(g) E…

  • 21 Jan 2026

    DEVARAJ A/L ANPALAGAN

    Citation
    BA-45A-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of knowledge/animus possidendi required for possession offences; physical proximity and momentary custody of a bag described by a third party as containing food were insufficient to establish a prima facie case under s39B(1)(a) ADB; accordingly the accused was discharged and released without being called upon to give defence evidence.

  • 21 Jan 2026

    DEVARAJ A/L ANPALAGAN

    Citation
    BA-45A-155-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-155-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution proved identity of drugs but failed to prove accused had the requisite knowledge/possession (mens rea). Evidence showed accused briefly held a wrapped paper bag handed by another who said it contained food, no keys or personal linkage to the flat were found, and multiple searches produced inconsistent results; therefore there was no prima facie case and the accused was discharged without being called to answer.

  • 21 Jan 2026

    DEVARAJ A/L ANPALAGAN

    Citation
    BA-45A-153-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-153-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove the essential mens rea element that the accused had knowledge of and control over the drugs; momentary custody and proximity to a concealed, black‑wrapped package that another person claimed ownership of did not establish possession for purposes of s39B(1)(a) ADB. Consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and released without being called to enter defence.

  • 14 Jan 2026

    [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] VEAKNESWARAN A/L RAMASAMY

    Citation
    CB-45A-21-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CB-45A-21-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court held that the prosecution proved the identity of the seized substances and established a prima facie case only for the drugs seized at the petrol station (sufficient evidence of possession, control and knowledge) but failed to show prima facie that the accused had possession, control or knowledge of drugs found in the two residences due to credible witness testimony denying the accused's presence and material conflicts in prosecution witnesses; accordingly the accused was called to enter defence only on the petrol-station related charges and was discharged and acquitted without bein…

  • 6 Jan 2026

    CHU WEE KONG

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-369-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-369-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court found the trial judge correctly evaluated the evidence, accepted SP3 as a credible single witness, and correctly applied the presumption of possession and knowledge under section 37(d) ADB; additional raids were separate and did not create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case that drugs were seized from the appellant at the scene; delays and incomplete CCTV did not render prosecution evidence unreliable.

  • 5 Jan 2026

    CHEW LENG SOON

    Citation
    J-05(SH)-71-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    J-05(SH)-71-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court upheld the trial judge: credible eyewitness evidence that appellant entered alone, was carrying the plastic later found to contain methamphetamine matching drugs in a locked room which appellant identified by key, established possession and knowledge; given the large quantities the statutory presumption under s.37(da) ADB applied and the appellant failed to rebut it on balance of probabilities, therefore convictions and sentences are affirmed.

  • 26 Nov 2025

    MOHD ADUKA BIN MUHAMAD

    Citation
    T-05(SH)-327-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    T-05(SH)-327-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Court of Appeal found material and unresolved contradictions in prosecution evidence (discrepant timings of seizure and transport, inconsistent accounts on whether appellant attempted to flee, and inconsistency over where the identity card and bag were found) and insufficient critical evaluation by trial judge; these defects meant prosecution failed to prove custody, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt and therefore no prima facie case existed to require the accused to make a defence, warranting allowance of the appeal and quashing of conviction and sentence.