Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consumption of dangerous drugs

Legal area

Court

12 Jan 2026

Mohd Khairul Ehwan Bin Md Desa

Citation

AA-82D-18-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-82D-18-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved all requisite factual predicates for applying the statutory presumption in section 37(k) ADB 1952 (lawful arrest and urine sample taken, sample analysed by government science officer, detected substances are listed in the First Schedule, and chain of custody intact); the defence failed to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities and failed to raise reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, therefore the accused was convicted under section 15(1)(a) ADB 1952. Sentencing was guided by public interest and the accused's status as a police officer…
18 Nov 2025

NORMALA BINTI ABDULLAH

Citation

BJ-62D-168-11/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BJ-62D-168-11/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Because the accused was a repeat offender previously convicted under s.39C(1), S.39C(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 mandated imprisonment of not less than seven years; the court therefore lawfully imposed the statutory minimum seven years' imprisonment to run from date of arrest and two years' supervision under s.38B ADB; whipping was not ordered because the accused is female and thus exempt under section 289; the guilty plea and personal mitigation were considered but were outweighed by public interest and the seriousness of the offence.
31 Dec 2024

HASNOL BIN YACUB

Citation

JA-82D-22-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-82D-22-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution proved chain of custody and compliance with s31A; the laboratory report (P10) established presence of Amphetamine and Methamphetamine listed in the First Schedule; the presumption under s37(k) therefore applied and was not rebutted by the defence; the typographical error in the charge was a curable clerical mistake under ss156 and 422 CPC and was properly amended under s158; accordingly a prima facie case was established and the accused was guilty under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
21 Oct 2024

AZRUL ASYRAFF BIN AZALAN

Citation

JH-82D-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JH-82D-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Defence applications to recall witnesses were refused as frivolous and potentially an abuse of process; the defence failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) on the balance of probabilities because its assertions were afterthoughts and unraised at the prosecution stage; therefore prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was convicted under Section 15(1)(a) ADB 1952 and sentenced to a fine of RM4,000 with default 12 months imprisonment plus a 2-year supervision order with reporting requirements.
14 Jul 2023

NAZRULAZMA BINTI NAZRI

Citation

PA-82D-6-04/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-82D-6-04/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material and credible inconsistencies about the identity and condition of the urine sample (conflicting witness descriptions of the bottle and possible contamination) destroyed confidence in the chain of custody and the link between the accused and the analyzed specimen; therefore the court was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent and properly acquitted and discharged the accused without calling for defence.
27 Jun 2023

PADMANATHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

JA-83D-4656-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83D-4656-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved all elements of amended possession charge under s6 DDA 1952 and consumption charge under s15(1)(a) beyond reasonable doubt: physical control and proximity of cannabis to the accused, credible chemist identification and intact chain of custody established prima facie possession; urine specimen handling complied with s31A and pathology confirmed THC invoking s37(k) presumption which was not rebutted on balance of probabilities; defence was uncorroborated denial and failed to call or identify corroborating witnesses or produce credible rebuttal evidence, therefore convictions…
29 May 2023

LIM SWEE LEONG

Citation

AB-83D-1495-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-83D-1495-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody and credible forensic analysis showing amphetamine and methamphetamine in the defendant’s urine; statutory presumption under s37(k) ADB 1952 was validly engaged and the defendant failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; therefore the elements of s15(1)(a) ADB 1952 were proven beyond reasonable doubt and defendant is guilty. Sentencing weighed mitigation (serious health condition, sole carer responsibilities) against prior conviction and public interest, resulting in a fine of RM4,700 and mandatory AADK supervision f…
24 Feb 2021

GUNASILAN A/L RAMAN (I/C NO.: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

JB-42S-3-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42S-3-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal against sentence was dismissed and the trial court's sentences were affirmed because the appellant failed to adduce mitigating factors at trial or on appeal, the trial judge properly exercised sentencing discretion by prioritising public interest and deterrence in light of the offences and evidence, and there was no demonstrable error warranting appellate interference.