Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 15(1)(a) dangerous drugs act 1952

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2026

HARIRI BIN ZAMBRI

Citation

BD-62D-77-10/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-62D-77-10/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Accused convicted under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and, because of four prior convictions under s15(1)(a), sentenced under s39C(1) to the statutory minimum of five years imprisonment commencing from date of arrest 5-6-2025; guilty plea acknowledged but did not permit reduction below statutory minimum; no whipping ordered given accused's age; two years police supervision ordered post‑release.
26 Feb 2026

MOHD IZWAN BIN JARUKI

Citation

NB-82D-3-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NB-82D-3-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved continuity of custody, compliance with s31A requirements, and laboratory confirmation that the sample contained amphetamine and methamphetamine; defence assertions were mere denials and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s37(k) on the balance of probabilities; therefore defendant guilty under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
17 Dec 2025

[ ] MOHD IZZUL ASLAN BIN YAHYA

Citation

DI-62D-38-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-62D-38-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court exercised its discretion under Section 294 KTJ and found that the accused's mitigation (family responsibilities, lengthy remand of about 1 year 8 months, remorse, cooperation and rehabilitation plan) justified recording the conviction but releasing him on a good behaviour bond; court ordered a bond with RM5000 security and one surety.
13 Nov 2025

MOHD ARIF AKMAL BIN RAHMAD

Citation

NB-82D-11-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NB-82D-11-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the labelled sealed urine specimen belonged to the accused and the chain of custody was continuous; the accused was constructively under arrest such that s.31A(1A) applied and triggered the presumption under s.37(k) DDA which the defence failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; therefore conviction under s.15(1)(a) DDA was warranted and, weighing mitigation and rehabilitation, the appropriate sentence was a fine with alternative imprisonment and police supervision under s.38B.
6 Aug 2025

YONG WAI KEE

Citation

BA-43-24-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-43-24-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act applies to offences punishable under section 39C; the specific non‑bail provision in section 41B overrides general CPC provisions and, given the enhanced punishment under section 39C due to prior convictions, bail is barred by section 41B(1)(b). The Sessions Court refusal to grant bail is upheld.
15 Jul 2025

MOHD IKMAL HAFIFI BIN RASHID

Citation

BJ-82D-1-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-82D-1-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and the identity/integrity of the urine sample: the urine bottle and photographs were not produced, escorting officers were not called, the pathologist was not called to verify the report (ID5) and the investigating officer could not account for the exhibit; these gaps defeated a prima facie case and justified acquittal at the close of the prosecution, with s114(g) invoked to draw adverse inference against the prosecution.
26 Jun 2025

MOHD AZRIL BIN YAHYA

Citation

DA-82D-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-82D-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by reliable urine screening, proper sealing and chain of custody and confirmatory laboratory analysis; the accused's ketum explanation was a late, irrelevant and uncorroborated afterthought/bare denial failing to discharge the burden to establish an alternative cause, therefore conviction under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is justified; on sentencing, imprisonment of 9 months and 2 years AADK supervision are appropriate given public interest, gravity and the accused's position.
19 May 2025

FAZLY BIN SALIM

Citation

AA-82D-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-82D-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and left unexplained a 24‑hour custody gap and contradictions in SP4's evidence; those lacunae created reasonable doubt such that a prima facie case was not made out under section 173(f) CPC and section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, therefore the accused must be acquitted without being called to enter a defence.
2 Jan 2025

ABDULLAH HAKIM BIN HAIRUL ANUAR

Citation

DA-83D-19-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83D-19-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Appeal dismissed; the trial court's sentence of six months imprisonment with a two-year supervisory order under Section 38B ADB was appropriate and proportionate: the appellant's early guilty plea warranted mitigation but did not outweigh public interest and gravity of voluntarily ingesting dangerous drugs; imprisonment to run from re-arrest date 30.12.2024.
30 Dec 2024

Suhaimi Bin Suib

Citation

WA-82D-41-09/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-82D-41-09/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted prosecution witnesses and the chemist’s analysis under s45 Evidence Act 1950 as reliable, rejected the defence clinical report D14 as a late, clinically‑produced afterthought lacking chain of custody and relevance, found the defence denials uncorroborated, and held prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; the accused was convicted and sentenced to a fine of RM4,500 (default nine months' imprisonment) with AADK supervision for two years; stay of execution refused.