Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Statutory presumption

  • 12 Jan 2026

    LIEW KONG VUI

    Citation
    PB-83-417-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    PB-83-417-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution proved the seized cigarettes were prohibited imports lacking tax stamps but failed to prove beyond a maximum evaluation that the accused had conscious possession and knowledge of the goods; statements and directions from the accused were inadmissible due to non‑compliance with statutory caution under s116B; therefore the statutory presumption under s135(2) could not be invoked to cure evidential gaps; no prima facie case was made out and accused discharged and acquitted, while forfeiture of the goods was ordered under s127(1) after expiry of appeal period.

  • 5 Jan 2026

    CHEW LENG SOON

    Citation
    J-05(SH)-73-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    J-05(SH)-73-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Appellate court affirmed trial finding that prosecution proved possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt based on credible eyewitness evidence of appellant entering and leaving the premises with the plastic containing drugs, his conduct in indicating the locked room key, the matching type of drugs found in the room and the statutory presumption under s.37(da) ADB which appellant failed to rebut; accordingly convictions and sentences were upheld.

  • 10 Dec 2025

    [ ] 1. ) Visvamurthy A/l Apparasamy 2. ) M Thiyagu A/l Murty 3. ) Sathiaselan A/l Ayakanu 4. ) Siah Chin Aun

    Citation
    AA-45A-11-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    AA-45A-11-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court held that possession (custody and control and knowledge) of 426,792.2 grams of methamphetamine by the four accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt by their exclusive presence in the enclosed lorry compartment next to open boxes containing the drug and lack of any credible innocent explanation; however trafficking under s39B(1)(a) DDA was not proven because of unresolved reasonable alternative inferences concerning third‑party access and absence of indicia of distribution, permitting substitution to conviction for the lesser offence of possession under s12(2) DDA punishable under…

  • 14 Nov 2025

    ARJUNAN A/L CHANDRAN

    Citation
    BL-45A-21-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BL-45A-21-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found the prosecution proved a prima facie case: accused was alone at scene actively packing cannabis (866.4g) with scales and packaging, chemical analysis confirmed the drug, and statutory presumption under s.37(d) applied; accused failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; thus possession, knowledge and trafficking established and guilty under Section 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952.

  • 23 Oct 2025

    MOHAMAD FITRI BIN KAMARUDIN

    Citation
    RA-83D-136-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    RA-83D-136-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution failed to prove a necessary nexus between the accused and the seized drugs because of unresolved doubts over identification and marking of the tissue box (P15), gaps in chain of custody and exhibit handling, and incomplete investigation by the investigating officer; multiple reasonable inferences other than guilt exist, so no prima facie case was established and the accused must be acquitted.

  • 18 Sept 2025

    NGH WAI PENG

    Citation
    BA-62D-105-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BA-62D-105-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Material and unexplained discrepancy between the physical description of four packets as observed at egestion (described as dried leaf) and the laboratory analysis (crystalline methamphetamine) created reasonable doubt as to the identity/handling of those exhibits; prosecution failed to prove those four packets beyond reasonable doubt and defendant acquitted on the methamphetamine charge (BA-62D-105-06/2023); two other packets (one cannabis and one nimetazepam) had consistent chain of custody and matching laboratory results and supported conviction; appropriate concurrent sentences of two yea…

  • 8 Aug 2025

    Zaidi Bin Dali

    Citation
    AA-42R(A)-4-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    AA-42R(A)-4-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Recordings were inadmissible for lack of mandatory s43(4) certificate; absence of recovery memo broke the evidential chain for the alleged RM7,000 receipt; investigatory conflicts and unexplained delay/omissions by the complainant further undermined credibility; s50(1) presumption was misapplied because foundational proof of receipt was not established. Accordingly convictions under ss17(a) and 16(a)(B) were unsafe and were set aside leading to acquittal and discharge of appellants.

  • 11 Jul 2025

    MOHAMAD SALEHUDDIN BIN ALI

    Citation
    JA-45A-112-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-45A-112-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove possession, custody and control by the accused beyond a prima facie threshold because the recovered package may have been accessed or deposited by others or displaced by water, the officer did not secure or retrieve the object at the moment it was observed thrown and the package found was not shown conclusively to be the same object; these unresolved alternative inferences broke the chain to the accused and prevented activation of the statutory presumption under s37(da), therefore no prima facie case of trafficking was made and the accused must be discharged.

  • 2 Jul 2025

    SEOW BOON SENG [TIMBALAN ]

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-582-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-582-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to explain why co-accused with essentially the same defence was acquitted while appellant was convicted; that lacuna created a reasonable doubt as to appellant's guilt and required appellate intervention to quash the conviction.

  • 16 Jun 2025

    [TIMBALAN ] Lim Boon Seng

    Citation
    BA-45A-124-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-124-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution proved possession, care and control and knowledge by direct observation and circumstantial evidence; statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(d) ADB1952 applied and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; therefore conviction for trafficking was proper and sentencing followed under the amended statutory regime.