Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acquittal and discharge

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2025

MOHAMMAD RIFQI BIN MOHD SAIDIL KHUDRY

Citation

DA-83D-1104-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83D-1104-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held that the prosecution repeatedly failed to produce the investigating officer without reasonable excuse and failed to demonstrate adequate steps (no subpoena/kaki sepina) to secure attendance; repeated re‑filing and reliance on Section 254/254A under these circumstances would be an abuse of process and unfair to the accused, therefore an order of acquittal and discharge is justified and must stand.
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…
22 Apr 2024

MARIYANI BINTI HARUN

Citation

AA-62-25-04/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-62-25-04/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found prosecution proved that the accused had care of the children and that the children suffered physical injuries, but prosecution failed to prove that the accused caused those injuries or was responsible for them; absent evidence directly linking the accused to the injuries and given other occupants in the house and evidentiary gaps (untendered photos/videos, unclear timing), no prima facie case existed and acquittal and discharge at end of prosecution case was required.
26 Feb 2024

[ ] IDRES BIN ISMAIL

Citation

DA-82D-8-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-82D-8-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Appellant failed to raise a reasonable doubt because his case amounted to bare denial and afterthoughts introduced at defence stage without calling material witnesses; prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt (prima facie upheld by High Court); therefore conviction and sentence were affirmed.
2 Feb 2024

BADARUDDIN BIN MOHAMED

Citation

PA-42(R)(A)-2-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

R
Case number

PA-42(R)(A)-2-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial judge misdirected himself at the end of the defence by assessing the defence on the balance of probabilities as if s.23(2) SPRM Act 2009 had been activated when it had not; that misdirection prejudiced the accused and caused a miscarriage of justice. Consequently the convictions and sentences were unsafe and were set aside; the accused was acquitted and discharged and bail returned.
31 Oct 2023

[Pejabat Pengarah Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan] Muhammad Hisyam Najmie Bin Mohd Azlan

Citation

DJ-83D-1007-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DJ-83D-1007-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Material and irreconcilable contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the circumstances of arrest and seizure, coupled with the investigating officer's failure to investigate a defence‑nominated third party (Azam) permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act, meant the prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt; hence respondent must be acquitted and discharged despite chemist’s confirmation of the substance identity.
17 Feb 2022

[ ] ROSILA BINTI ISMAIL

Citation

DA-83-141-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83-141-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of section 417: there was no clear evidence the accused deceived and intentionally induced the complainant to surrender the title; the transaction was consensual/security or sale to the lender and inconsistencies favoured the accused; mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating; therefore no prima facie case and accused acquitted and discharged.
15 Mar 2021

Lam Ee Voon

Citation

WA-42LB-10-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42LB-10-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held there was no misdirection of fact or law by the trial judge who correctly found that, on the evidence and attendant communications, the contested transfers could be ordinary business transactions and that the defence raised reasonable doubt as to dishonest criminal breach of trust; accordingly the acquittal was affirmed.
16 Jan 2020

ROMAN ZOLOTAROV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

B-05(M)-179-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-179-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to specify whether the case proceeded on statutory presumed trafficking or actual/direct trafficking, improperly invoked both alternatives, and failed to rule whether the statutory presumption had been rebutted; that omission prejudiced the appellant's burden and rendered the conviction and sentence unsustainable, warranting setting aside the conviction and ordering acquittal and discharge.
18 Sept 2019

Dato' Gee Siew Yee Pendakwaraya

Citation

WA-42(ORS)-31-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ORS
Case number

WA-42(ORS)-31-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) is not a final decision and therefore not appealable; the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and properly dismissed it; the Sessions Court correctly granted DNAA when the prosecution elected to discontinue and the court may not substitute an acquittal unless the prosecution so directs.