Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 38b dangerous drugs act 1952

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2025

MOHD ARIF AKMAL BIN RAHMAD

Citation

NB-82D-11-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NB-82D-11-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the labelled sealed urine specimen belonged to the accused and the chain of custody was continuous; the accused was constructively under arrest such that s.31A(1A) applied and triggered the presumption under s.37(k) DDA which the defence failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; therefore conviction under s.15(1)(a) DDA was warranted and, weighing mitigation and rehabilitation, the appropriate sentence was a fine with alternative imprisonment and police supervision under s.38B.
26 Jun 2025

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 proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by reliable urine screening, proper sealing and chain of custody and confirmatory laboratory analysis; the accused's ketum explanation was a late, irrelevant and uncorroborated afterthought/bare denial failing to discharge the burden to establish an alternative cause, therefore conviction under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is justified; on sentencing, imprisonment of 9 months and 2 years AADK supervision are appropriate given public interest, gravity and the accused's position.
2 Jan 2025

ABDULLAH HAKIM BIN HAIRUL ANUAR

Citation

DA-83D-19-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83D-19-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Appeal dismissed; the trial court's sentence of six months imprisonment with a two-year supervisory order under Section 38B ADB was appropriate and proportionate: the appellant's early guilty plea warranted mitigation but did not outweigh public interest and gravity of voluntarily ingesting dangerous drugs; imprisonment to run from re-arrest date 30.12.2024.
12 Jul 2022

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] PENAMA XXXX

Citation

CB-84-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-84-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although the guilty plea is a mitigating factor, the court must balance rehabilitation needs of the juvenile against public interest and aggravating factors including prevalence of drug offences and prior offending; on this balance the appropriate order is placement at Sekolah Tunas Bakti for three years with a good behaviour bond of RM1000 to ensure rehabilitation and public protection.
13 Sept 2021

ONG BOON TAT PENDAKWARAYA

Citation

BL-41H-10-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-41H-10-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no error in the Magistrate's consideration of mitigation and public interest but concluded the original sentence was unduly light given the appellant's repeated drug convictions; accordingly the appeal was dismissed, conviction under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 affirmed and the custodial sentence increased from 1 month to 4 months with a subsequent 2-year supervision order under s38B DDA 1952.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD ARIF AKMAL BIN RAHMAD

MOHD AZRIL BIN YAHYA

ABDULLAH HAKIM BIN HAIRUL ANUAR

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] PENAMA XXXX

ONG BOON TAT PENDAKWARAYA