Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trafficking presumption

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] SUREN A/L RAMACHANDARAN

Citation

WA-45A-28-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-28-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the accused rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking as to intent to traffic but failed to raise a reasonable doubt on possession with knowledge; therefore trafficking charge under section 39B(1)(a) was reduced to possession under section 12(2) DDA and the accused was convicted of possession of 217.95g methamphetamine and of cannabis (95.92g and 0.22g), with concurrent custodial sentences and mandatory whipping as imposed.
16 Jan 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] SHEAGER A/L ADEKKAPACHI

Citation

WA-45A-6-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-6-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution proved possession beyond reasonable doubt by chemist confirmation of drugs, the accused's admission and direction to the vehicle, his control of the car keys and presence at the vehicle when the contraband was found; the presumption of trafficking was rebutted on the accused's unrebutted explanation implicating third parties, but that did not negate possession; therefore conviction on both counts for possession was appropriate and concurrent imprisonment imposed.
14 Jan 2026

MOHD KHAIRUDIN BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

KB-45-6-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KB-45-6-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove beyond prima facie threshold that accused had exclusive possession, control and knowledge of the seized cannabis due to material gaps: failure to call or tender available and relevant witness statements (including deceased ex-wife's recorded statement), presence of evidence indicating third‑party access (DNA on cigarette butt), and inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' accounts; therefore no prima facie case under s.180 Criminal Procedure Code and accused must be discharged without being called to enter defence.
15 Oct 2025

CHE KU SAHABUDIN BIN CHE KU MAN

Citation

T-05(LB)-587-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

T-05(LB)-587-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellate court held the trial judge erred by re‑opening and revisiting prima facie findings at the defence stage and by failing to determine whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(xvi) on the balance of probabilities; possession and knowledge were proven by proximity and control of items found, the presumption was not rebutted, therefore convictions under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 were warranted and appropriate sentences (life imprisonment and 12 strokes for the two trafficking counts) were imposed; conviction and sentence on the poi…
29 Aug 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] LOH KOON HAN

Citation

WA-45A-84-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-84-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that the bag contained methamphetamine; key prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and credibility was undermined; withdrawal of charges against principal actors weakened the prosecution case; momentary possession for another person (Ah Tat) was found credible and created reasonable doubt on mens rea; therefore accused was acquitted and discharged.
27 May 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

W-05(LB)-401-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

W-05(LB)-401-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Majority held prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against the respondent because SP2's account contained material doubts, prosecution failed to call material witnesses (Hariharan and Suresh) thereby permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950, the unexplained pink bag and incomplete forensic steps undermined chain of custody and raised realistic possibilities of access by others or planting, and therefore the High Court's acquittal and discharge must be upheld.
30 Oct 2024

B.JAGANATHAN A/L BALAKRISHNAN

Citation

BA-45A-101-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-101-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive custody/control or knowledge by the accused and failed to call the vehicle owner whose absence created a material evidentiary gap warranting an adverse inference under section 114(g); consequently the court could not sustain the presumption of trafficking and acquitted the accused.
8 Oct 2024

PRASANT A/L PATMANATHAN [ ]

Citation

W-05(SH)-357-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-357-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the trial judge properly assessed credibility and facts; SP2's evidence that both appellants were on the same motorcycle with appellant one bearing the backpack containing cannabis was reliable. Appellants failed to produce reasonable alternative inferences or credible supporting evidence (John, CCTV, other officers). The inference of joint possession and knowledge was justified and the conviction and sentence were safe and therefore upheld.
31 Jan 2023

Mohd Elmy Arif Bin Hamid

Citation

BA-45A-7-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-7-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had custody and control of the quarters and knowledge/possession of the drugs found in the speaker; no credible evidence of third‑party ownership or access; statutory presumption under s37(da) applied for Cannabis and Methamphetamine quantities; therefore accused convicted for trafficking counts and sentenced accordingly.
12 Jun 2022

[ ] ISMAIL BIN JUSOH

Citation

DA-45-3-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-45-3-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found prosecution evidence established exclusive access, affirmative links and conduct (flight, communication) sufficient to prove possession, knowledge and joint intention; the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(xvi) applied to 134.6g methamphetamine and was not rebutted, resulting in convictions on all counts and imposition of prescribed sentences.