8 Dec 2025
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.
30 Sept 2025
Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either defendant had exclusive or joint possession, control, custody and knowledge of the cannabis. Material gaps and unexplained investigative omissions (unverified rental documents and signatures, failure to call rental company witnesses, no forensic examination of seized phones, inconclusive fingerprint analysis, and unresolved third‑party explanation 'Yusuf') raised reasonable doubt sufficient to rebut statutory presumptions; accordingly defendants were acquitted and discharged.
21 May 2025
The Court allowed the appeal in respect of the s39B distribution charge (P2) because the prosecution failed to prove distribution beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant successfully rebutted the s37(da) presumption as to distribution; the conviction and sentence under s39B were quashed and the appellant acquitted on that count. The Court dismissed the appeal against the s12(2)/s39A(1) possession-with-intent/joint-intent charge (P4), finding the prosecution had proven possession and joint intent beyond reasonable doubt; that conviction and sentence were affirmed.
30 Sept 2024
Prosecution proved identity of the seized liquid as Mitragynine by expert evidence but failed to prove the crucial element of possession (control and knowledge). Material gaps included failure to call or offer as witnesses co-occupant(s) who had access to the bag, non-production of the accused's identity cards and failures in investigation that broke the chain of evidence; these omissions justified applying s114(g) adverse inference and established that no prima facie case was made out, therefore the accused was discharged not called to enter defence and acquitted.
5 Mar 2023
Prosecution failed to prove that the accused had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs found in the bedroom and in the vehicles; there were material gaps: room accessibility by others, absence of forensic link to accused, inability to show exclusive use of vehicles, and failure to call a material witness (Mohd Shahfizal/Epi) who could explain access. Because possession was not proved, the statutory presumption for trafficking under s37(da) could not be applied and no prima facie case existed; accused discharged.
23 Oct 2019
Prosecution failed to prove the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt because credible defence evidence established the car was borrowed by a person called Amin whose evidence was not called by the prosecution; that omission created a reasonable doubt and entitled the accused to an adverse inference under Evidence Act s114(g), so conviction could not be upheld.
1 Jan 1900
Plaintiff failed to prove its claim on a balance of probabilities because key contemporaneous contractual and export documents were not properly produced or proven, the draft Bill of Lading and other ID documents were inadmissible without their makers or proper proof, and adverse inferences were warranted under s114(g) for non-production of material evidence and witnesses; defendant's evidence of unmerchantable goods and prior dispute was accepted, therefore plaintiff's claim for USD53,266.50 was dismissed.