Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory presumptions s37(d)

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2025

MUHAMAD TAUFIQ BIN ABDOLL HAMID

Citation

BA-61D-1-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-61D-1-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court convicted because prosecution proved, by direct eyewitness police evidence and an unbroken chain of custody corroborated by chemical analysis (54.86g), that the accused had physical possession and thereby knowledge under the statutory presumption s37(d); the defence bare denial (claimed street find and intention to report) did not raise reasonable doubt; weight triggered s39A(2)(f) sentencing regime.
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.
18 Dec 2020

PENDAKWARAYA TPR MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN NOOR HASHIMI 1. MOHD HIRWAN BIN MONOMIAH 2. AZZUDIN BIN RAMLI

Citation

NE-82D-06-10-2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NE-82D-06-10-2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found prosecution proved custody/control and knowledge necessary for possession: exhibits were found inside bags on a table immediately in front of the accused, personal items of OKT1 were inside the same bag, accused showed suspicious conduct, chain of custody was maintained and the chemist confirmed methamphetamine; statutory presumption under s37(d) DDA properly invoked and defence failed to raise reasonable doubt, therefore conviction under s12(3) DDA was justified.

Malaysia Case Law

MUHAMAD TAUFIQ BIN ABDOLL HAMID

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

PENDAKWARAYA TPR MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN NOOR HASHIMI 1. MOHD HIRWAN BIN MONOMIAH 2. AZZUDIN BIN RAMLI