Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 32 evidence act 1950

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2025

MUHAMMAD NAZRAN BIN LUTFI

Citation

TA-83D-1190-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83D-1190-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to discharge burden to establish uninterrupted chain of custody and exclusive control/possession: an unexplained, material weight discrepancy (57.91 g) combined with inadequate and inconsistent evidence about custody over a prolonged period and failure to produce or properly authenticate the registered owner of the motorcycle created reasonable doubt; therefore no prima facie case and accused acquitted without being called to defend under s173(f) CrPC.
7 Nov 2024

YONG YEOW HIN [ ]

Citation

M-09-37-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

M-09-37-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the deposition and recording could not be admitted under section 61A ATIPSOM because no removal order by the Director General of Immigration was produced; because the prosecution had elected to record the deposition under section 61A and failed to comply with its mandatory prerequisite, the deposition could not be relied on under section 32(1)(i) EA to sustain the prosecution's case; the conviction and sentence were therefore unsafe and were set aside.
27 Jul 2022

YONG CHOO KIONG

Citation

AA-45-2-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-45-2-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that while the proffered documents and testimony were relevant, they constituted hearsay aimed at proving the truth of a recantation and therefore were inadmissible because the defence failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites under s32(1) Evidence Act 1950 (no adequate proof SP15 could not be produced and no sufficient diligent efforts under Criminal Procedure Code), the documents' authenticity was doubtful (material inconsistencies and signature discrepancies) and, consequently, the additional evidence could not, when assessed with the trial record, raise a reasonable doubt;…
11 May 2022

VIJIAN A/L KRISHNAN XIN HWA TRADING & TRANSPORT SDN BHD

Citation

NA-12B-5-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12B-5-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The sketch plan was correctly excluded because the statutory preconditions under section 32(1) (and the proviso to section 73A) were not shown to be met; and the trial judge rightly dismissed the plaintiff's claim because after evaluating the evidence the judge found no prima facie case — a defendant's election not to call evidence does not automatically require acceptance of the plaintiff's evidence without the judge first determining whether a prima facie case exists. The appeal is dismissed.
14 Nov 2019

CHANDRU A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

A-05(SH)-326-06/2018 & A-05(H)-329-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

A-05(SH)-326-06/2018 & A-05(H)-329-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld convictions on all four charges because the prosecution proved chain of custody, the chemist's report and credible eyewitness evidence that the accused occupied the premises and had the power to deal with the drugs; admissions notwithstanding, sufficient independent evidence established possession and knowledge; the wife's cautioned statement was admissible under section 32 because she could not be procured and the statement was relevant; subsection 2A of s39B is retrospective but requires satisfaction of limbs (a) and (d) and either (b) or (c); limb (d) (assistance to enforc…

Malaysia Case Law

MUHAMMAD NAZRAN BIN LUTFI

YONG YEOW HIN [ ]

YONG CHOO KIONG

VIJIAN A/L KRISHNAN XIN HWA TRADING & TRANSPORT SDN BHD

CHANDRU A/L MUNIANDY