Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 182a criminal procedure code

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2025

TAY CHER BOON [ ]

Citation

B-05(SH)-370-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-370-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The trial judge misapplied the law by invoking the s.37(d) presumption while finding facts amounting to direct possession (custody, control and knowledge), thereby imposing a higher burden on the appellant; the trafficking conviction was unsafe on the evidence and substituted convictions for possession under s.12(2) were appropriate; appeal allowed and sentences substituted accordingly.
16 Apr 2024

[ ] LIM SHUH PENG

Citation

KA-45A-79-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-79-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found direct evidence (visual observation, CCTV, possession of the bag at arrest, matching clothing and contents, chemical analysis) established custody and control and permitted an inference of knowledge; statutory presumptions under s37(da) applied due to weights, defence failed to rebut those presumptions on balance of probabilities, therefore prosecution proved each element beyond reasonable doubt and conviction followed.
23 Jun 2023

SALMI BINTI A. RAHMAN

Citation

BL-42S-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-42S-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court allowed the appellant's appeals and quashed all convictions and sentences because the Sessions Court judge failed to perform the judicial duty of evaluating and considering the defence evidence and all evidence as required by section 182A(1) CrPC, amounting to a material misdirection (non-direction) that rendered the convictions unsafe.
24 Feb 2023

SHAMUGASUNDRAM A/L PERUMAL [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-273-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-273-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held prosecution proved trafficking beyond reasonable doubt: chain of custody was sufficiently established by markings and witness identification despite minor timing discrepancies; telephone records/sim cards were not material and s114(g) did not apply; the conduct of the accused established common intention under s34; the trial judge properly assessed defence and his interventions under s165 did not cause actual prejudice; therefore convictions and mandatory death sentences under s39B(2) DDA 1952 were affirmed.
24 Feb 2023

VIGNESVARAN A/L KRISHNAN [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-275-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-275-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution proved a negotiated sale (trafficking) beyond reasonable doubt through credible agent provocateurs and corroborated contemporaneous documentation; chain of custody was established by markings and witness identification so no break; telephone records were not material to require adverse inference; common intention and control/knowledge were inferable from the accuseds' conduct; the trial judge's interventions were lawful under s165 and s182A CPC was substantively satisfied; convictions and mandatory death sentences were affirmed.
13 Sept 2022

Narendranpathy A/l Pathi [ ]

Citation

M-05(M)-381-10/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

M-05(M)-381-10/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Convictions were unsafe because prosecution identification evidence was internally inconsistent and unreliable and there was no legally sufficient proof of common intention under S.34; the trial judge erred in law and fact, warranting appellate interference and acquittal.
16 Jul 2020

WAN MASRUL FAIZIE BIN WAN MUSTAPHA

Citation

W-06A(M)-25-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-06A(M)-25-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The combined circumstantial evidence—applicant's financial grievance, meeting with the deceased on the day, possession of the pistol with matching ballistic characteristics to casings found at the scene, gunshot residue on pistol and clothing, and matching soil on the applicant's motorcycle—when accepted by the trial judge, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; appellate court will not disturb credibility findings, therefore conviction and death sentence affirmed.

Malaysia Case Law

TAY CHER BOON [ ]

[ ] LIM SHUH PENG

SALMI BINTI A. RAHMAN

SHAMUGASUNDRAM A/L PERUMAL [ ]

VIGNESVARAN A/L KRISHNAN [ ]

Narendranpathy A/l Pathi [ ]

WAN MASRUL FAIZIE BIN WAN MUSTAPHA