Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 180 criminal procedure code

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

NGOOI ESING

Citation

BA-45-10-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-10-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because critical elements were not proved: exclusive possession/control and knowledge were not established for the seized parcels and items; key identification evidence (acupakai) was inadmissible or unreliable due to failure to give required warnings and lack of contemporaneous records; mobile phone/waybill linkage lacked provenance and chain of custody; alternative explanations (Ivan Lee = Chong Je Long, access by others) created reasonable doubt — therefore accused acquitted without being called to enter defence.
14 May 2025

1. ) SITI ASMA BINTI RAMLI 2. ) SAZAIDI BIN SALLEH

Citation

KA-45A-72-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-72-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material and unexplained contradictions between the contemporaneous search/unloading list and police testimony created reasonable doubt as to where and how the drugs were seized and who had custody/knowledge; coupled with absence of evidence of a pre-arranged plan or joint intent to distribute, prosecution failed to establish possession, knowledge or joint distribution at the prima facie stage, therefore accused must be discharged.
2 May 2025

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] Mohammad Imran Bin Basri

Citation

BI-62JS-6-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BI-62JS-6-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of penetration — medical examination P10 was inconclusive ('unsure') and the prosecution did not produce competent medical evidence on the complainant's mental fitness to testify; accordingly there was no prima facie case and the accused was discharged and acquitted under section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code.
31 Jan 2023

MOHD ADLY HAFIZZI BIN ABU HASSAN

Citation

WA-62RS-5-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62RS-5-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because the crucial identification and recovery evidence was materially inconsistent and not credible: the victim could not positively identify the accused at the time of the offence (face obscured by helmet, no plate number), his in-court account conflicted with his police report concerning immediate recovery of the chain, and these inconsistencies undermined the reliability of the prosecution case; therefore the accused was discharged under s.180 CPC without being called to enter defence.
30 Sept 2022

[ ] SARAWUT PANMEE

Citation

RA-42LB-1-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-42LB-1-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's finding that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts because identification of the accused was doubtful and the identification parade process and supporting evidence were deficient; therefore the accused must be discharged and acquitted and the appeal dismissed.
28 Jan 2022

Abdul Halim Bin Darus [ ]

Citation

RA-42S(A)-1-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

RA-42S(A)-1-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court erred in law and fact by failing to perform a maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence at the close of the prosecution case; the prosecution failed to call material witnesses whose absence justified an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act; material contradictions between oral testimony and forensic reports and failures to mark exhibits broke the chain of custody and undermined the prima facie case, necessitating acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.
26 Aug 2020

1. ) ABDULLAH BIN ATAN 2. ) MOHAMMAD REZA GHAEM PANAH NEZAMALI 3. ) HASSAN JAVADIPIROUZ AVAZALI 4. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ) MAHMOOD YARY MOHAMMAD (PASSPORT NO. H 20682101S)

Citation

05(M)-56-02/2019(J); DIDENGAR BERSAMA 05(M)-205-09/2018(W); 05(M)-206-09/2018(W); 05(LB)-207-09/2018(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

M
Case number

05(M)-56-02/2019(J); DIDENGAR BERSAMA 05(M)-205-09/2018(W); 05(M)-206-09/2018(W); 05(LB)-207-09/2018(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 180(4) CPC must be read harmoniously with section 37(da) DDA: once credible evidence establishes actual possession and the statutory weight is met, the court may invoke the rebuttable presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) to make out a prima facie case; appellants Abdullah, Reza and Hasan had possession and statutory weight established so their convictions and death sentences are affirmed; prosecution's appeal against Mahmood fails because possession was not proven against him and his acquittal is affirmed.

Malaysia Case Law

NGOOI ESING

1. ) SITI ASMA BINTI RAMLI 2. ) SAZAIDI BIN SALLEH

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] Mohammad Imran Bin Basri

MOHD ADLY HAFIZZI BIN ABU HASSAN

[ ] SARAWUT PANMEE

Abdul Halim Bin Darus [ ]

1. ) ABDULLAH BIN ATAN 2. ) MOHAMMAD REZA GHAEM PANAH NEZAMALI 3. ) HASSAN JAVADIPIROUZ AVAZALI 4. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ) MAHMOOD YARY MOHAMMAD (PASSPORT NO. H 20682101S)