Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of exhibits

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2026

OSC HOTELLING (M) SDN. BHD

Citation

TB-63-15-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TB-63-15-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution's case depended materially on the Daily Guest In‑House Record (ID8) to prove both existence of personal data and processing; because ID8 was not admitted as an exhibit and witness evidence alone could not validate its contents, an essential element of the offence was unproven on maximum evaluation, so no prima facie case existed and the accused must be acquitted and discharged.
4 Nov 2025

1. ) PRATHAN A/L AH WIN 2. ) MOHD ROSZAIMI BIN MOHD ROOS

Citation

KA-45SOM-1-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45SOM-1-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court upheld an eight-year custodial sentence because the offence under section 26A Akta 670 read with section 34 Kanun Keseksaan is grave, public interest and deterrence outweigh the largely personal mitigating factors, precedent indicates an 8–10 year range for similar offences, and the statutory power to forfeit the vehicle applies.
30 May 2025

KHAIRUL MUHSEIN BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

CA-83JS-8-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-83JS-8-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found prosecution failed to prove the specific element of 'gross indecency' under Section 377D but accepted complainant's substantive identification and corroborative CCTV/evidence established the use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty; accordingly court properly amended the charge under Section 173 CPC to Section 354, found defendant guilty on that amended charge and sentenced him to one year imprisonment, the defence having failed to raise a reasonable doubt.
27 Nov 2024

1. ) AZIM MUZAKKIR BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) NURASAL MUHAMMAD BIN SIDEK SULAIMAN BIN MOHAMAD YUNEH

Citation

CA-A72NCvC-34-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCvC-34-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to the claimed balance because they did not complete works to contractual standard, left numerous defects supported by unchallenged inspection reports and invoices; Defendant's premature termination was lawful given Plaintiffs' failure to proceed regularly and diligently and their failure to remedy defects; accordingly Plaintiffs' claim dismissed and Defendant's counterclaim for remedial costs allowed in part (RM23,264 and RM20,000) plus costs RM1,500.
23 Jan 2024

Seyedmohsen Namazikivaj Seyedreza [ ]

Citation

P-05(M)-577-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

P-05(M)-577-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution proved a manufacturing setting and unbroken chain of evidence; amendment to charge was proper and an affirmative finding of possession was not necessary where manufacturing evidence established nexus to the drugs; exhibits were admissible as identified/marked with defence present and no prejudice shown; common intention inferred from facts; convictions and death sentences of the three appellants are safe and affirmed.
30 Mar 2022

Mohd Nor Azmi Bin Mohamed Nor [Kementerian Pertanian & Industri Asas Tani Malaysia]

Citation

DA-41(Ors)-2-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

DA-41(Ors)-2-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The magistrate correctly applied section 29(8) Akta 728, was sufficiently satisfied on the evidence that an offence under section 11(1) (importation without permit) occurred and that the 139 goats were the subject matter of that offence; inconsistencies in witness accounts were immaterial to establishing importation and the exhibits were admissible for the inquiry, therefore the forfeiture order was lawful and must be upheld.
10 Mar 2020

Sargunan a/l Arumugam

Citation

B-05(M)-85-02/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-85-02/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of the evidence — expert forensic reports establishing large quantities of methamphetamine and ketamine, the presence of laboratory paraphernalia and chemicals, DNA profiles of appellants on clothing/towels/ gloves found in the premises, the locked premises and proximity of appellants to exposed drugs — the trial judge correctly inferred manufacture/trafficking and knowledge/control and joint intention; the trial judge's credibility findings and exhibit identifications were lawful and the appellate court will not disturb them, therefore convictions and sentences are upheld.
10 Mar 2020

Alex Aby Jacob Alexander

Citation

B-05(M)-87-02/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-87-02/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of the evidence — expert chemical analysis establishing large quantities of methamphetamine and ketamine produced on the premises, corroborating forensic and DNA links between appellants and items at the scene, the layout and paraphernalia consistent with manufacturing, and the appellants' proximity and conduct at a locked premises — the trial judge rightly concluded circumstantial proof established manufacturing, knowledge and joint intent; the trial judge properly assessed credibility and exhibit identification was adequate; therefore convictions and death sentences are safe…