Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 34 common intention

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2025

MAT AZAM BIN NASIR

Citation

J-05(SH)-152-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

J-05(SH)-152-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the convictions because credible direct evidence from undercover officers proved a negotiated sale to an agent provocateur; agent provocateur evidence is admissible under s.40A DDA and not displaced by the prosecution's failure to call other witnesses or produce corroborative documentary exhibits where no withholding was shown; the innocent carrier defence failed on the facts and wilful blindness applied; therefore the prosecution proved distribution and the elements required for conviction and the trial judge's factual findings stand.
18 Jun 2025

1. ) CHUA HOCK BENG 2. ) LEE KEE TEIK

Citation

KA-45A-37-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-37-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although prosecution proved the seized substances were scheduled drugs and maintained chain of custody, it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had exclusive possession, control and the requisite knowledge or that there was a common intention with the co-accused; inconsistencies in police evidence and credible alternative access to the premises created reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal.
23 Aug 2021

PENDAKWARAYA TPR MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN NOOR HASHIMI 1. ) MOHD EZUL AFFKAR BIN RAMLI 2. ) MOHD ZAMANI BIN ABDUL RANI

Citation

NE-83D-916-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NE-83D-916-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

OKT1 convicted because prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had custody and control of the vehicle and the concealed bag containing 7.25g methamphetamine; his conduct (handing keys and pointing to the vehicle) and the absence of any credible alternative explanation established both control and knowledge (or invoked the statutory presumption under s37(d)). Chain of custody and chemist's evidence were intact and admissible. OKT2 was acquitted because prosecution failed to prove proximity, control or knowledge linking him to the exhibits.

Malaysia Case Law

MAT AZAM BIN NASIR

1. ) CHUA HOCK BENG 2. ) LEE KEE TEIK

PENDAKWARAYA TPR MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN NOOR HASHIMI 1. ) MOHD EZUL AFFKAR BIN RAMLI 2. ) MOHD ZAMANI BIN ABDUL RANI