Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 12(2) dangerous drugs act 1952

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2026

SOM BOON LAONGKEOW A/L TONG

Citation

RA-83D-127-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

RA-83D-127-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved identity and quantity of the drug by credible chemical analysis and maintained chain of custody; factual circumstances (open container containing packets found directly in front of accused while he sat alone, observation by police, lack of evidence of others' access) established control and knowledge. Defence was a bare denial which failed to raise reasonable doubt. Accordingly, court convicted the accused under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under Section 39A(1).
15 Oct 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MOHAMAD SUFIAN BIN SAHBUDIN 2. ) MOHD NIZAM BIN POIMAN

Citation

CB-45-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

For charges where drugs were found in an exposed motorcycle basket, the prosecution failed to prove prima facie that OKT1 or OKT2 had possession, knowledge and control because there was no evidence excluding third‑party access, no chain of custody or source of the motorcycle was established and no direct link to either accused; thus no prima facie case for those charges. However, for the amended charge in CB-45-10-04/2023 (1.01g methamphetamine) the prosecution did establish a prima facie case against OKT1 and OKT1 was ordered to be called to enter his defence.
3 Jul 2025

MOHD KHAIRIL ANUAR BIN CHE CHAT

Citation

RA-41LB-7-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-41LB-7-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under section 180 Criminal Procedure Code and section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 because material contradictions in prosecution witnesses created two incompatible versions and inferences, one favourable to the respondent; absent compelling reasons to disturb the magistrate's factual findings, the acquittal must stand and benefit of doubt is to be given to the respondent.
27 Mar 2025

MAGENDRAN A/L MUKUNTHAN [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-91-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-91-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had physical possession, custody and control of the drugs and knowledge thereof; the appellant's conduct in directing police to the car/speaker box was admissible under section 27 Evidence Act 1950 and established knowledge; procedural failures (non-production of CCTV/fingerprints/DNA and non-calling of owner Ramesh) were not fatal as such evidence is corroborative or not withheld and did not raise reasonable doubt; therefore conviction and sentence…
13 Jan 2025

MUHAMMAD SHAHRIN BIN KAMIS

Citation

MA-83D-674-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-83D-674-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Bag found in sling bag worn across accused's body established exclusive control; chemical analysis confirmed methamphetamine 18.83g; statutory presumption under s37(d) arose and defence failed to rebut it on balance of probabilities; prosecution proved prima facie case and beyond reasonable doubt; accused convicted under section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced under section 39A(1) to 30 months imprisonment and 3 strokes, execution stayed pending appeal on RM2000 bail.
6 Jan 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) SURIFKI ARDIANSYAH 2. ) RAMADHAN BIN SOFYANKAYLANI

Citation

CF-83D-798-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CF-83D-798-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Balancing mitigation (first offence, early guilty plea, personal circumstances) against public interest and the need for deterrence, the court found a custodial sentence of 48 months imprisonment from date of arrest to be proportionate and appropriate for possession of 2.90g methamphetamine under Section 12(2) ADB read with Section 34 Penal Code.
6 Jan 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) SURIFKI ARDIANSYAH 2. ) RAMADHAN BIN SOFYANKAYLANI

Citation

CF-83D-798-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CF-83D-798-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court balanced mitigating factors (early guilty pleas, first offences, personal circumstances) against the overriding public interest and need for deterrence in drug cases; having regard to the quantity (2.9g) and applicable legal principles, the appropriate and proportionate sentence is 48 months imprisonment from date of arrest.
6 Oct 2024

AZIRIN BIN SUHOT

Citation

JG-82-2-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JG-82-2-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court convicted the accused because the prosecution proved physical possession (drug found in accused's right hand), demonstrated knowledge by surrounding circumstances and witness testimony, and established unbroken chain of custody and forensic analysis confirming 0.15g methamphetamine; no reasonable doubt was raised by defence; sentence of one year imprisonment imposed from date of conviction.
16 May 2024

MOHD NORHISYAM BIN MOHD ROZI

Citation

TF-83D-873-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TF-83D-873-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although chemical analysis proved the material was methamphetamine weighing 10.32 grams, the prosecution failed to prove possession, control and knowledge by the accused because of breaks and doubts in the chain of custody, unidentified/undescribed exhibits (rubber band), unsigned seizure inventory, and material inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses regarding observation distance and duration; on maximum evaluation a prima facie case was not made out and the accused must be acquitted.
16 Jan 2024

[Pejabat Pengarah Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan] MOHD AMIN BIN MOHD ROSLI

Citation

DJ-82D-11-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DJ-82D-11-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

After maximum evaluation the court found the prosecution proved prima facie that the accused had possession and knowledge of the methamphetamine: the drugs were found in a bag among the accused's personal items in his immediate presence, the chemical analysis confirmed the substances, chain of custody was intact, and the accused's alternative account amounted to a bare denial that did not raise reasonable doubt; conviction under Section 12(2) DDA 1952 was warranted.