Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trafficking in dangerous drugs

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2025

Mohd Izad Bin Matap

Citation

B-05(SH)-179-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-179-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court accepted the trial judge's finding that the drugs were found in a backpack in the appellant's possession outside the premises, that chemical analysis established identity and quantity, and that defence evidence (including D22) was internally inconsistent and contradicted by SD2's guilty plea and objective evidence; on that basis custody, control and knowledge were established and the quantity supported trafficking, therefore the conviction was safe and must be affirmed.
24 Nov 2025

Mohd Izad Bin Matap

Citation

B-05(SH)-177-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-177-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found the trial judge correctly preferred the prosecution's account over the defence: objective evidence (backpack on appellant, chemistry report) and quantities established custody, control, knowledge and trafficking; D22 was unreliable and contradicted by SD2's plea and testimony; no miscarriage of justice or legal error was shown, therefore conviction and sentences are safe and affirmed.
16 Oct 2025

Chandrasekar Krishnamoorthy [ ]

Citation

B-05(SH)-393-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-393-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Given the prior Court of Appeal finding of a prima facie case, the appellant failed to raise a reasonable doubt: the chain of custody was continuous and intact, investigative deficiencies were not established on the scant particulars provided by the appellant, and the innocent carrier defence failed because suspicious circumstances and material inconsistencies established at least wilful blindness; therefore conviction and sentence were affirmed.
21 Aug 2025

MURALIKRISHNA A/L NOKIAH [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(M)-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that for the 1st accused the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt a negotiated sale culminating in delivery to an agent provocateur (negotiation, rendezvous, receipt and handing over of Exhibit P26 and forensic confirmation of methamphetamine), thereby satisfying the elements of trafficking under the DDA; convictions against the 2nd and 3rd accused were unsafe because the prosecution failed to call material witnesses (notably Linges), investigative gaps existed (no forensic telephone examination, untraced suppliers), and there was insufficient evidence to prove knowledge…
15 Apr 2025

[ ] 1. ) Shahrul Nizam Bin Abdullah Sani 2. ) Nuzul Fadzil Bin Mohamed Noor

Citation

KA-45A-65-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-65-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held prosecution proved identity and weight of drugs and established that the packages were in specially constructed compartments of the vehicle, justifying the application of the s.37(h) presumption as to knowledge only against accused 1 (the driver and controller of the vehicle). Prosecution failed to prove any joint possession or knowledge by accused 2 and failed to produce evidence linking him to the packages. At trial, accused 1's sworn evidence raised a reasonable explanation that rebutted the statutory presumption on balance of probabilities (including credible evidence of a thir…
24 Mar 2025

MOHAMAD IBROHEIM BIN ZAINON

Citation

KA-45A-33-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-33-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation of all evidence the court found the seized substance to be methamphetamine (623.6 g) and that it was under the custody, control and possession of the accused who had knowledge of it; statutory presumption of trafficking applied and the defence allegations of third-party access were rejected as unsubstantiated and contrived; accordingly prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was convicted under s.39B(1)(a) DDA and sentenced to life imprisonment.
20 Mar 2025

Abdul Kalam Sajeev [ ]

Citation

N-05(M)-109-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

N-05(M)-109-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The prosecution established possession and trafficking by admissible chemist analysis, DNA and objective indicia of occupation and control (proximity of drugs, personal documents, living amenities); admissible secondary photographic evidence was admitted because originals had been deleted; non‑calling of other potential witnesses did not amount to suppression or negate established facts; expert competency was established by unchallenged methodology; accordingly convictions were safe. However, the mandatory death sentences were set aside pursuant to the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act…
20 Mar 2025

Fazil Farook [ ]

Citation

N-05(M)-112-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

N-05(M)-112-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offences: chemist evidence identifying drugs and weights was admissible and unchallenged; DNA, personal items, living amenities and the unconcealed location of drugs supported inference of joint physical possession and knowledge; keeping/storing constituted trafficking under s2 and s39B(1)(c); non-production of other witnesses did not justify adverse inference where evidence otherwise established custody, control and knowledge; photographs were admissible under s65(1)(c) as originals were destroye…
20 Mar 2025

Salim Sabeer [ ]

Citation

N-05(M)-108-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

N-05(M)-108-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld convictions because the prosecution proved possession and trafficking through unchallenged chemist evidence, DNA linking appellants to the premises, recovery of identification and other items establishing custody and control, and the open storage of drugs; photographs were admissible secondary evidence after originals were deleted; non-production of other witnesses did not amount to suppression or create reasonable doubt; accordingly convictions were safe though mandatory death sentences were substituted pursuant to Act 846 with long concurrent imprisonments and whipping.
11 Mar 2025

Iun Chung Peng [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

S-05(M)-108-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

S-05(M)-108-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld conviction because the appellant had actual and continuous physical possession and control of the luggage, unlocked it with the numerical code demonstrating knowledge, and was wilfully blind to the illicit contents; the quantity triggered the statutory presumption of trafficking under DDA s.37(da)(xvi) which the appellant failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; accordingly conviction stands though death sentence was commuted to 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes.