Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of statements

Legal area

Court

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.
6 Feb 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) IBRAHIM BIN YAAKOB 2. ) MOHD RASHIDI BIN MOHD ROSDI

Citation

WA-45A-6-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-6-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prosecution proved a prima facie case against both accused for the large quantity of cannabis in the car and against the first accused for cannabis on the motorbike; statutory presumptions under s.37(d)/s.37(da) ADB 1952 properly applied, shifting evidential burden to the accused; first accused failed to rebut the presumptions on balance of probabilities and was therefore convicted; second accused presented a more probable explanation that he was entrusted with car keys and did not know of or control the drugs and thus successfully rebutted the presumption and was acquitted.
20 Aug 2025

[ ] ABDUL GHANI BIN MD KHAMIS @ MD ALI

Citation

KA-45A-22-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-22-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had custody, control and knowledge of 1020.9g cannabis via direct evidence and conduct (pointing out the hiding place); the act/statements leading to discovery were admissible under s27 Evidence Act; weight invoked statutory presumption of distribution under perenggan 37(da)(vi) ADB 1952 which accused failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; accordingly accused convicted under perenggan 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 and sentenced under discretionary regime of Act 846 to life imprisonment (treated as 30 years here) rather than death.
23 Apr 2025

[ ] SHAHRIL ZHARIF BIN ABD MALIK

Citation

DG-83D-468-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DG-83D-468-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although chemical analysis proved the seized pills contained 9.10 g methamphetamine, contradictions as to when the statutory caution was given and absence of evidence that its consequences were explained rendered the accused's statements/acts inadmissible; without admissible evidence proving control/possession the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case and the accused is discharged and acquitted.
13 Jan 2025

NGO YU WHEE

Citation

CA-83-92-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-83-92-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved each element of possession and knowledge of prohibited uncustomed cigarettes beyond reasonable doubt; statutory presumptions under s119 and s135(2) were not rebutted by the defendant; recorded statements and corroborating forensic and valuation evidence established offence under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967; defendant convicted and sentenced accordingly.
25 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MOHD JAFRI BIN HUSSAIN 2. ) NOR MALIA BINTI AWANG MAN 3. ) XXXX

Citation

WA-45A-7-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-7-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Chemist reports established the substances were methamphetamine of weights triggering statutory presumption of trafficking; chain of custody and identification of exhibits were continuous; location and visibility of packages in the accused’s vehicle and his conduct in directing police to the cabinet at the premises supported findings of custody/control and knowledge; defence failed to rebut presumptions or raise reasonable doubt; therefore prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt and accused convicted on both counts.
13 Mar 2023

[TIMBALAN ] Suhaizad Bin Setopa

Citation

83D-1314-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

83D-1314-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the required second element of possession (knowledge/control) and the chain of custody was undermined by serious inconsistencies and investigative gaps; inadmissible or prejudicial material (annotations alleging admissions) were excluded and acupakai evidence was rendered inadmissible for lack of statutory caution, therefore no prima facie case was established and the accused was acquitted.
20 Sept 2022

MOHAMAD ZULAZWAN BIN SAALI [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-54-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-54-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed Zulazwan's conviction because possession and trafficking were proved: he admitted ownership of the suitcase before arrest, DNA from a towel in the suitcase matched him, his conduct (attempting to flee) and surrounding circumstances established wilful blindness and knowledge, and the statutory presumption of possession was not rebutted; conversely the Court allowed Mahendara's appeal because there was insufficient independent evidence linking him to the drugs — the CCTV was indeterminate, no call records were produced to corroborate alleged phone contact, and Zulazwan's test…
20 Sept 2022

MAHENDARA RAO A/L SURUNARAYANA [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-55-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-55-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Zulazwan's conviction and death sentence were upheld because the Court found he was in custody of the suitcase, DNA linked him to the suitcase, his conduct and surrounding circumstances established wilful blindness defeating the innocent carrier defence and satisfied possession and trafficking elements; Mahendara's conviction was unsafe because there was no independent or corroborated evidence linking him to the drugs or demonstrating common intention, CCTV and phone evidence were inadequate and his conviction and sentence were set aside.
24 Jan 2022

NG CHUAN HAN

Citation

WA-83D-11196-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-83D-11196-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because there was credible evidence of third-party access to the premises, material contradictions in prosecution witnesses regarding keys, photographs and handling of exhibits, failure to demonstrate that the statutory caution under section 37B was properly given and explained (rendering the accused's explanatory act inadmissible), and material gaps/discrepancies in the chain of custody and exhibit weights (including unexplained custody around fingerprint dusting and urine handling); cumulatively these defects raised reasonable doubt and…