Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Use of controlled drugs

  • 22 Sept 2025

    KUAN HUI MIN

    Citation
    AC-62D-127-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AC-62D-127-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court found the guilty plea was not a significant mitigating factor because it was entered only after a superficial amendment that did not alter material elements; balancing the limited personal mitigation against public interest and deterrence, and noting whipping cannot be imposed on a woman, the court sentenced the defendant to six years' imprisonment from date of arrest and three years AADK supervision.

  • 29 Jul 2025

    MOHD FARKHAN SHAH BIN JAAFAR SHAH

    Citation
    JE-82D-4-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JE-82D-4-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court found prosecution proved both elements of S.15(1)(a): urine sample belonged to defendant and laboratory analysis confirmed amphetamine and methamphetamine; chain of custody was not broken; statutory presumption under S.37(k) applied; defendant's uncorroborated denial and late complaint failed to raise reasonable doubt; defendant convicted and sentenced accordingly.

  • 26 Feb 2025

    MOHD FARKHAN SHAH BIN JAAFAR SHAH

    Citation
    JE-82D-4-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JE-82D-4-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Although prosecution established a prima facie case and laboratory analysis was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine, credible sworn defence evidence and corroborating defence witnesses raised a reasonable doubt about chain of custody, sampling procedures and investigation fairness; prosecution failed to call rebuttal witnesses after Alcontara notice and did not dispel the doubt, therefore the accused was acquitted.

  • 27 May 2024

    MOHD RASHID BIN SULAIMAN

    Citation
    JA-82D-51-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JA-82D-51-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found unresolved, material discrepancy about the number of urine sample bottles and resulting potential break in chain of custody which the prosecution failed to dispel (including failure to re‑examine key witnesses); given the competing inferences the inference favourable to the accused was adopted and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the defendant was acquitted.