Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Charge particulars

  • 12 Feb 2026

    Mohamad Hamzi bin Mohd Kasmadi

    Citation
    JA-44-1-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-44-1-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The application is dismissed: the charges are not defective because each count gives sufficient certain notice (month, precise location, victim identity and manner) for an offence under s14(d) SOACA 2017 where date/time are not essential; the applicant has not demonstrated actual prejudice under s156 CPC (no specific alibi particulars or corroborating witnesses identified); the application is also premature because the prosecution may amend charges before judgment; any minor defect would be curable under s422 CPC.

  • 2 Dec 2025

    1. ) TAI KUANG TEE 2. ) SIM MING HOOI 3. ) TAI KUANG LEE

    Citation
    KB-85-29-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    KB-85-29-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    After maximum evaluation the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of affray under Section 160 (physical fighting involving accused and others at the front of a motorcycle workshop in a public place that disturbed public peace); the defence of self-defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt; the charge and particulars were not defective; accused convicted and sentenced to fine RM1,000 or 2 months imprisonment.

  • 20 Nov 2025

    MOHD NASIRI BIN MOHD RADZI

    Citation
    RA-62JSK-40-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    RA-62JSK-40-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court convicted the accused on all seven charges because the child complainant was competent and her sworn testimony was found credible and corroborated by medical findings and supporting witnesses; the defence alibi and interested defence witnesses failed to create reasonable doubt; sentencing followed statutory ranges and relevant principles, ordering specified prison terms and strokes with all sentences to run concurrently, counselling and police supervision, and compensation; the court refused to amend charges or apply a sentencing provision not included in the charge.

  • 23 Oct 2025

    ONG MUI SIA

    Citation
    KA-42JSKS-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-42JSKS-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The appeal is dismissed because the indictment adequately alleged rape under s376(1) despite referencing the definitional provision; any omission in particulars was curable under s156 and s422 CPC; the trial judge's evaluation of credibility, demeanour and medical evidence was reasonable and not plainly wrong; therefore conviction and sentence are safe and should be upheld.

  • 9 Jan 2025

    Che Sa'adon Bin Che Yahya [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]

    Citation
    T-06B-39-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    T-06B-39-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court upheld the conviction: the prosecution proved all elements of s.471/465 — appellant used a forged receipt and had reason to believe it was forged; the general date 'September 2016' was sufficient given documentary and witness evidence and did not prejudice defence; implicit consent by the DPP through conduct of a Deputy DPP cured any absence of written sanction for the alternative charge; trial judges properly assessed credibility and their factual findings would not be disturbed absent compelling reasons.

  • 18 Jul 2023

    MUHAMAD FAISOL BIN NOR@NORDIN

    Citation
    KA-42H-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-42H-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held the guilty plea was valid and unequivocal because the Sessions Court adequately explained the nature and consequences and the plea was made by the appellant himself; the amended charge and the chemical report were properly presented and served; the mandatory sentence under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (as read with Criminal Justice Act 1953) was correctly imposed; therefore there was no ground to disturb conviction or mandatory sentence and the appeal was dismissed.

  • 31 May 2022

    TONY VISHNU A/L NAGAMAIAH

    Citation
    WA-83-458-01/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    WA-83-458-01/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on the charge of criminal intimidation because (a) material contradictions and inconsistencies existed between the complainant's evidence, the investigating officer's evidence and documentary exhibits; (b) photographic evidence was unauthenticated and forensic report could not verify originals; (c) the alleged threatening letter was not produced or forensically linked to the accused; (d) the charge lacked clear particulars identifying the actus reus and mens rea alleged; and therefore the accused was lawfully discharged and acquitted unde…

  • 18 Jan 2022

    MUHAMMAD ZULHILMAN BIN ZULKAPELI

    Citation
    TA-83-381-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    TA-83-381-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court convicted under s.193 Penal Code because the accused was legally bound to tell the truth (oath and s.112 CPC), made statements in judicial proceedings and in a recorded s.112 statement that were materially contradictory and irreconcilable, failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the contradictions, and the surrounding facts (relation to alleged beneficiary brother and witness credibility) established knowledge and intention to give false evidence; procedural defects raised were curable and did not prejudice the accused; sentence imposed was 24 months' imprisonment commencing 18…

  • 10 Mar 2020

    JAMALUDDIN BIN ALI

    Citation
    W-05(M)-53-01/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    W-05(M)-53-01/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held that the prosecution proved a prima facie case by means of combined direct eyewitness accounts and corroborating forensic evidence establishing that the appellant repeatedly assaulted the deceased causing multiple blunt force injuries which in the ordinary course of nature caused death; the appellant failed to establish alibi or rebut the case, the address discrepancy was immaterial, and the elements of murder were satisfied, therefore the conviction and death sentence were upheld.

  • 10 Jan 2020

    PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya Zaiton binti Sidek

    Citation
    BL-83-1030-05/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BL-83-1030-05/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    At the close of the prosecution the evidence established a prima facie case that the accused, as registered account holder, had received and withdrawals were made from the account totalling RM22,600, satisfying the concealment and dishonesty elements for s.424; however after hearing the accused's sworn testimony and considering her recorded police statement that she had handed her ATM card and PIN to a third party, the defence raised a reasonable doubt as to exclusive control and dishonest concealment by the accused; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is…