Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common intention (s.34 penal code)

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) SYED URFAN AL-KHAIDIR BIN SYED ZAINAL ABIDIN 2. ) KHATIJAH BINTI IBRAHIM 3. ) MUHAMMAD AIZAT BIN ABD.KARIM

Citation

CB-45A-23-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45A-23-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved chemical identification of drugs and direct observation linking OKT3 to a black object brought into the vehicle; that established a prima facie case against OKT3 who was therefore convicted under an amended charge (s.39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952). Prosecution failed to establish prima facie case against OKT1 and OKT2 because evidence did not prove their possession, control or knowledge of the drugs and absence of supporting fingerprint/DNA evidence weakened the prosecution case against them; they were acquitted. Sentencing discretion exercised: death not imposed; OKT3…
9 Jan 2026

MOHD SHAHIR BIN AHMAD DEWI

Citation

JA-42R(A)-7-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JA-42R(A)-7-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial judge’s credibility findings of PW4, corroborating circumstances and admissible recordings established that the First, Second and Fourth Appellants corruptly solicited and/or obtained gratification and that they participated in a common intention; statutory presumption under s.50(1) MACC Act was not rebutted by affirmative evidence; by contrast prosecution produced no evidence of any act or facilitation by the Third Appellant to satisfy the participation requirement of s.34, so his convictions could not stand.
9 Jan 2026

1. ) MOHAMAD ZULHISHAM BIN ZULKAFLI 2. ) MOHAMED SYUKUR BIN GULAM MOHAMED

Citation

JA-42R(A)-4-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JA-42R(A)-4-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The convictions of the First, Second and Fourth Appellants were affirmed because the prosecution proved solicitation and receipt of gratification, established inducement and forbearance, applied s.50(1) MACC Act 2009 which was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities, and there was sufficient evidence of active participation and common intention; the Third Appellant was acquitted because the prosecution produced no evidence of any act, statement or receipt by him that would satisfy the participation element required for liability under s.34 Penal Code and the presumption could not properl…
19 Dec 2025

OMAR BIN YAHYA

Citation

JA-45A-29-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-29-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Chemist report and uninterrupted chain of custody proved the substances and their quantities; drugs were found in open bag before both accused and in bag carried by accused 2 establishing physical control and knowledge; statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) was triggered by quantity; facts established common intention under s.34; defence failed to raise reasonable doubt — convictions and sentences are therefore upheld.
21 Oct 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD AMINUDDIN BIN MD ARIFFIN 2. ) FIQRI MUSTAQIM BIN ZAKARIA

Citation

BA-45A-132-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-132-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence (chemical analysis, discovery in packed bundles in vehicle under accuseds' control, conduct of accused including flight and refusal to cooperate, corroborative circumstantial factors and recording D29), the court found prosecution proved possession, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt and statutory presumption under s.37(da) ADB 1952 applied; accuseds' defences were implausible and mere denials, therefore convicted under s.39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 read with s.39B(2) and s.34 Penal Code.
7 Oct 2025

[ ] 1. ) Mr. Pa-e-din Longsamah 2. ) AMZANEI BIN CHE ANI

Citation

KA-45A-80-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-80-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of credible prosecution evidence (witness testimony, seizure location in locked room, contemporaneous conduct of accused, and chemical analysis confirming 203.9g Cannabis exceeding statutory threshold), the court found possession, knowledge and a common intention to distribute proven; the statutory presumption of trafficking applied and the defence failed to rebut it on balance; accordingly the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and convictions followed; sentencing exercise used discretion under Act 846 resulting in life imprisonment (treated as 30 years) and…
4 Sept 2025

1. ) AZMI BIN HAMID 2. ) MOHD MUSTAFID FITRI BIN MOHD MUSHAZAN

Citation

RA-83D-539-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

RA-83D-539-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie case against the first accused because evidence admitted more than one reasonable inference, there was no sufficient nexus or proof of control/possession by the first accused (second accused admitted sole ownership), and the investigator's inquiry was incomplete; therefore benefit of doubt given and accused discharged.
21 Aug 2025

MURALIKRISHNA A/L NOKIAH [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(M)-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that for the 1st accused the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt a negotiated sale culminating in delivery to an agent provocateur (negotiation, rendezvous, receipt and handing over of Exhibit P26 and forensic confirmation of methamphetamine), thereby satisfying the elements of trafficking under the DDA; convictions against the 2nd and 3rd accused were unsafe because the prosecution failed to call material witnesses (notably Linges), investigative gaps existed (no forensic telephone examination, untraced suppliers), and there was insufficient evidence to prove knowledge…
17 Jul 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD SHABUDIN BIN YUSOFF 2. ) AMIRUL ASRI BIN SHAARI [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

B-05(SH)-380-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-380-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held unanimously that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants had possession, control and knowledge of the Cannabis and acted with common intention to traffic; AP evidence was credible and corroborated by police witnesses and chemical analysis; deficiencies in CCTV, fingerprints or DNA and non-calling of certain passengers did not create material gaps; although the trial judge misstated the burden regarding s.37(da), that error was in favour of the appellants and caused no prejudice; thus convictions and sentences were affirmed.
10 Jul 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) AZRIL SANI BIN RAMUDIN 2. ) ASRUL IMRAN BIN ABDULLAH (LISAN)

Citation

WA-45A-23-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-23-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first and second accused had mens rea possession or acted with common intention to traffic the drugs because the evidence only established a residential link, not a direct link to the drugs; missing corroborative forensic evidence (DNA/fingerprints), multiple access means and plausible alternative explanations rebutted the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities; there was no prima facie case against the third accused. Accordingly all accused were acquitted and discharged.