Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common intention (s34 penal code)

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ALIAS 2. ) MOHAMED RIZAL BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN

Citation

CB-45-22-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45-22-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although chemist evidence established the drugs' identity, prosecution failed to prove prima facie that either accused planted, possessed or trafficked the drugs; statutory presumptions under s6B(4) and s37(da) could not be invoked to link the accused because of evidence of third‑party access, the layout and remoteness of planting areas, lack of direct evidence of ownership/control of seized bottles, and absence of proof of common intention under s34; accordingly both accused were acquitted and discharged at the close of prosecution.
24 Nov 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD IZHAM BIN REDZUAN 2. ) NOR SYAZWANA BINTI AHMAD TAMIZI

Citation

KA-45A-29-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-29-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of credible evidence (police contemporaneous conduct, physical possession and handing over of packages by OKT1, hotel registration in OKT2's name, access card found in OKT1's wallet, chemical analysis, and admissible information under s27), the prosecution proved physical control and knowledge of the methamphetamine and joint control of the hotel room; the statutory presumption of distribution was properly raised due to aggregate weight exceeding statutory threshold and the defence failed to rebut on balance of probabilities or raise reasonable doubt; convictions and sentences…
31 Oct 2025

1. ) MUHAMAD HAFIS BIN BAKAR 2. ) MOHD ILAIHI BIN BAKHTIAR 3. ) MOHAMAD AMIRUL AIMAN BIN BAKHTIAR

Citation

JA-45A-29-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-29-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved a prima facie case: chemist confirmed scheduled drugs and weights exceeding statutory thresholds invoking s37(da) presumption of trafficking; chain of custody was continuous and exhibits were identified; occupants had custody, control and knowledge inferred from location, flight, DNA and inhabitation; defence evidence was inconsistent, constituted afterthoughts or bare denials and failed to rebut the presumption or raise reasonable doubt; therefore defendants were convicted under the specified statutory provisions and sentenced accordingly.
3 Sept 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) FRANCIS XAVIER 2. ) GABRIELLINA JANE A/P DEVARAJ SAMUEL ABISHEGAM

Citation

WA-45A-21-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-21-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: possession and mens rea were not proven given the drugs were in a borrowed car not exclusively controlled by the accused, material witnesses (car owner and intermediary) were not called (adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act), an unexplained ten‑hour gap in chain of custody undermined exhibit identity, investigation was inadequate and there was no evidence of common intention; accordingly the accused were acquitted and discharged under section 180 CPC.
21 Aug 2025

1. ) YUARAJA A/L RAJAGOPAL 2. ) Arunasalam A/l Supumaran [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(M)-521-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-521-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Conviction of 1st accused upheld because evidence proved a negotiated sale and delivery establishing trafficking and knowledge was inferable from conduct; convictions of 2nd and 3rd accused unsafe because failure to call material witness (Linges), investigative gaps and absence of cogent proof of knowledge or pre-arranged common intention raised reasonable doubt.
10 Jul 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) AZRIL SANI BIN RAMUDIN 2. ) ASRUL IMRAN BIN ABDULLAH (LISAN) 3. ) MARLINDA KIMPA (LISAN)

Citation

WA-45A-15-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-15-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first and second accused had possession with knowledge of the drugs or acted with common intention because investigative deficiencies (notably absence of forensic linkage and evidence excluding access by others), gaps on accessibility and credible alternative explanations created reasonable doubt; no prima facie case against the third accused; therefore all accused are acquitted and discharged.
30 Apr 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) Michael Ting Siew Su 2. ) Robinson Anak Sumping

Citation

WA-45A-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found prosecution established prima facie possession and activated s37(da) presumption of trafficking but on full evaluation the second accused raised a reasonable doubt as to knowledge and common intention and was therefore acquitted; the first accused failed to rebut mens rea for possession but evidential link to an actual trafficker (Dang Chee Ho) justified conviction for the lesser offence of possession under s12(2) DDA read with s39A(2) and sentencing accordingly.
13 Feb 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD ZULHISHAM BIN ZULKAFLI 2. ) Mohd Shahir Bin Ahmad Dewi - Dalam Jaminan 3. ) MUHAMMAD AZIM BIN MUHAMAD ADNAN 4. ) MOHAMED SYUKUR BIN GULAM MOHAMED

Citation

JA-61R-19-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-61R-19-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court held prosecution proved all elements of offences: first accused solicited RM7,000 and all accused acted in furtherance of common intention; RM1,600 was corruptly obtained and second accused attempted to obtain RM1,400; recorded conversation admissible as not intercepted; statutory presumption under s50(1) applied and was not rebutted on balance of probabilities; convictions entered and concurrent sentences imposed.
10 Feb 2025

1. ) NG MEE YEE 2. ) Ho King Lim [ ]

Citation

W-05(M)-128-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-128-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the facts the appellants, as the sole tenants and occupants of the unit where a sizeable concealed package of methamphetamine (777.3g) was discovered in the wardrobe used by them, were so situated as to have custody and control and the requisite knowledge; the trial judge properly weighed direct and circumstantial evidence, permissibly invoked the statutory presumption under s37(d) DDA (without applying an unconstitutional double presumption), and therefore the prosecution proved possession and trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed and, in mitigation and pursuant to the…
19 Dec 2024

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) SAL SUHAIMI BIN AB RASHID 2. ) JOHARI BIN HUSSIN 3. ) NORFARA DIANA BINTI MUSA

Citation

CB-45-5-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45-5-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although prosecution proved the presence and identity of dangerous drugs and established chain of custody, it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that OKT2 and OKT3 had possession, control or knowledge; for OKT1 the s37(da) presumption was rebutted by defence evidence and absence of forensic linkage (fingerprint/DNA) to the seized bag produced reasonable doubt; therefore all accused were acquitted.