Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wilful blindness

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHD SHUHAIRI BIN SALLEH

Citation

CB-45A-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45A-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt: accused was sole driver of the vehicle in which 23,516.2 grams of methamphetamine were found; statutory presumption under s.37(da) ADB 1952 was properly invoked to infer distribution; accused failed to rebut the presumption on balance of probabilities and the circumstances support application of wilful blindness; conviction under s.39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 followed and sentence of 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes was imposed.
24 Feb 2026

MOHD FAKHRULRAZI BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

JJ-83D-7-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JJ-83D-7-01/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Laboratory evidence established the seized items as methamphetamine (16.53g) and etizolam (0.88g) with an unbroken chain of custody; accused was the sole occupier/person in control of the locked room and safe (knew password and held key) and therefore had possession and knowledge of the drugs; defence explanations failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (punishable under s39A(1)) and s30(3) Poisons Act 1952 warranted; sentencing followed statutory minima and court discretion.
8 Jan 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHD YUSRI BIN JUSOH

Citation

WA-45A-66-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-66-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conviction rests on the accused's exclusive control of the vehicle and its contents (keys/access card and personal items), the substantial quantity of cannabis triggering the statutory presumption of trafficking which the accused failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities, credible prosecution evidence including unbroken chain of custody and chemical analysis, and the application of wilful blindness to attribute knowledge where the accused deliberately refrained from inquiry; these facts satisfy proof beyond reasonable doubt for s39B(1)(a) DDA.
8 Dec 2025

MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

B-05(SH)-101-03/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-101-03/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The conviction was unsafe because the trial court misapplied the burden of proof and failed to give adequate judicial appreciation to SD2's corroborating evidence and to investigative gaps; the defence raised a reasonable doubt as to knowledge and possession, warranting acquittal and discharge.
17 Nov 2025

[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] MUHAMMAD HARIZ BIN ABDULL MALEK

Citation

KA-45A-19-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-19-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt: chemical analysis confirmed Cannabis weighing 190,323.3g; drugs were concealed in a modified hidden compartment in a vehicle under accused's control; accused was sole occupant and driver at arrest; presumption under s37(h) applied and defence failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; wilful blindness further supports knowledge; accordingly accused guilty under perenggan 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 and death sentence justified under exercise of judicial discretion given public interest and massive quantity.
3 Nov 2025

MAT AZAM BIN NASIR

Citation

J-05(SH)-152-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

J-05(SH)-152-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the convictions because credible direct evidence from undercover officers proved a negotiated sale to an agent provocateur; agent provocateur evidence is admissible under s.40A DDA and not displaced by the prosecution's failure to call other witnesses or produce corroborative documentary exhibits where no withholding was shown; the innocent carrier defence failed on the facts and wilful blindness applied; therefore the prosecution proved distribution and the elements required for conviction and the trial judge's factual findings stand.
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.
9 Oct 2025

SATYAMOORTHY A/L SUNDRAMOORTHY

Citation

B-05(SH)-368-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-368-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution failed to close a material gap by not calling or offering the key witness (Thanabalan) and that the trial judge had relied on post-arrest admissions that were not shown to be given after a caution; on the evidence as a whole there was insufficient basis to sustain a trafficking conviction under s.39B(1)(a) so the conviction was substituted to possession under s.39A(2) DDA and the sentence reduced to 10 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of rotan from date of arrest.
3 Oct 2025

1. ) ALVIN RAJ A/L ANDREW ROY 2. ) MITHRA A/P R.SELVAKUMAR

Citation

BA-45A-19-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-19-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond prima facie that either defendant had control, custody and knowledge of the methamphetamine or that they shared a common intention to traffic it; close proximity was insufficient, investigation was inadequate and material witnesses (the renter Xeno Cravier and arresting officers) were not called such that s114(g) was engaged; therefore no prima facie case and defendants acquitted.
2 Oct 2025

LOKE SEEN YOONG [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-61-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-61-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Drugs were found on the appellant's person and in open view within a vehicle exclusively under his control; the quantity, packaging and surrounding circumstances engaged the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) which the appellant failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; the chain of custody and chemist evidence were reliable, therefore the convictions and sentences were upheld.