Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Section 37(k) presumption

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2024

NAZRI BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

DA-82D-30-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-82D-30-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Magistrate discharged the accused because prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: material contradictions and procedural defects in initial urine screening undermined the identity and integrity of the specimen; the statutory requirement that the sample be taken from a 'person arrested' under s.31A DDA 1952 was not met, therefore the s.37(k) presumption could not be applied and there was no proof the accused administered the drug to himself.
25 Sept 2024

MOHD AZRIL BIN YAHYA

Citation

DA-82D-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-82D-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because (a) although chain of custody showed the sample belonged to the accused, the expert report did not establish that the detected amphetamine/methamphetamine were classified as 'dangerous drugs' under Parts III & IV of the First Schedule and (b) the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) could not be invoked because Section 31A requirements were not met—the accused was not an 'arrested person' when the urine sample was taken; consequently discharge at end of prosecution was appropriate.