Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 165 penal code

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

Ganesh a/l Nathan

Citation

NA-61R-15-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-61R-15-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused received RM1,400 because the key corroborative document (ID16) was hearsay and inadmissible due to loss of the original audio and lack of proof of the transcription, there were no independent witnesses to the handover and surrounding evidence did not adequately corroborate PW3's assertion; therefore the accused must be acquitted.
27 Aug 2025

Noorlida binti Selamat

Citation

KA-61R-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KA-61R-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved all elements of s.165: OKT was a public servant who accepted cash and cheques from a supplier who had official dealings with the school, without adequate consideration; s.50(3) SPRM Act presumption applied and defence failed to rebut it (defence was found to be afterthought and bare denial); evidence was credible and inconsistent exculpatory explanations were not proved, therefore conviction on all counts was proper.
27 Aug 2025

Noorlida binti Selamat

Citation

KA-61R-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KA-61R-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution proved all elements of s.165: the accused was a public servant who accepted valuable things (cash and cheques) without consideration from a person with official dealings (SP4); s.50(3) MACC Act presumption applied and the accused failed to rebut it, therefore conviction was warranted and sentence imposed for each count.
30 May 2025

MOHD ZULFADLI BIN NAYAN

Citation

JA-61R-11-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-61R-11-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all ingredients of section 165 Penal Code by credible eyewitness and documentary evidence; statutory presumption under MACC Act s50(3) applied and accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; accused's alibi was inconsistent and uncorroborated and therefore rejected; conviction and sentence followed.
16 Jul 2021

TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

WA-05(SH)-440-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

WA-05(SH)-440-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The prosecution proved all four elements of s.165 Penal Code: the Appellant was a public servant, he obtained a valuable thing (RM2,000,000) via a cheque paid into a company he effectively controlled, there was no consideration given, and he knew the donor had connection with his official functions; the defence that the sum was a political donation failed because the receipt was unreliable, supporting witnesses lacked independent knowledge and the asserted party expenditure was unproven, therefore the conviction and sentence were correctly entered and must be affirmed.
21 Dec 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor

Citation

WA-45-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of section 165 Penal Code: the accused was a public servant; he accepted RM2,000,000 credited into Tadmansori (a company he controlled) for his benefit without consideration; he knew the donor had connections with his official functions; the UMNO receipt was unreliable and no payment to UMNO was traced; therefore the accused is guilty under s165 PC.
27 Nov 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Pn. Norzilati Izhani binti Zainal @ Zainol (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Hamidi bin Mohd Noh (Tetuan Syahrul & Hamid)

Citation

42(R)(A)-1-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

R
Case number

42(R)(A)-1-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient that the appellant had acquired a legal or at least equitable interest in the charged properties: the transactions were executory with no full payment or registrable transfer instruments, thus no vested interest capable of being 'accepted' under s165; consequently the presumption under s50(3) MACC Act did not arise and the convictions could not stand.
17 Dec 2019

LOGESHVARAN A/L SEGARAN

Citation

JA-61R-2-03/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-61R-2-03/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved the essential elements of the offences by credible eyewitness testimony, recorded communications and marked-money exchange; the statutory presumption under section 50 ASPRM applied and the accused failed to rebut it; consequent conviction under section 16 ASPRM (and alternatively section 165 Penal Code) was warranted and sentencing within statutory limits was appropriate.