Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Custody and control

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2025

1. ) MUHAMAD FAHRUL FIKRI BIN ISMAIL 2. ) MUHAMMAD SHARIZAL BIN MOHD SHAH

Citation

JB-42LB-4-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42LB-4-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's finding that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of custody, control and possession by the respondents because the pondok was accessible to others (no exclusive control), proximity and observed reactions were insufficient to prove knowledge and ownership of the drugs, and therefore the respondents were properly discharged and acquitted.
11 Sept 2025

AMIRUL ISKANDAR BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

Citation

NE-83D-300-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NE-83D-300-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the totality of credible evidence—police testimony that only the accused was in his room with a tin plainly in front of him, corroborative photographs and the chemical analysis confirming 8.22g methamphetamine—the court held prosecution proved custody/control sufficient to invoke s.37(d) presumption; the defence failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; therefore the accused was guilty under s.12(2) DDA 1952 and liable under s.39A(1).
18 Jul 2025

MOHD ZA'IM BIN HAMIM

Citation

BD-62D-21-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-62D-21-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the prosecution established a prima facie case and called the accused to enter his defence, the defence succeeded in raising reasonable doubt because the drugs were not on the accused, the premises and the specific bedroom were accessible to others, exclusive possession was not proven, and investigative gaps (no fingerprint or further inquiries) left plausible alternative explanations. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was to be released and acquitted on the amended charges.
27 Mar 2025

MAGENDRAN A/L MUKUNTHAN [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-91-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-91-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had physical possession, custody and control of the drugs and knowledge thereof; the appellant's conduct in directing police to the car/speaker box was admissible under section 27 Evidence Act 1950 and established knowledge; procedural failures (non-production of CCTV/fingerprints/DNA and non-calling of owner Ramesh) were not fatal as such evidence is corroborative or not withheld and did not raise reasonable doubt; therefore conviction and sentence…
19 Mar 2025

LOKE HONG FAI CHAN CHIU KHUK

Citation

BA-24F-211-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24F-211-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption in Section 88(3) and failed to prove the defendant was an unfit mother; the child’s welfare and settled status quo with the mother weighed decisively in favour of the defendant, therefore custody, care and control is to remain with the mother.
12 Dec 2024

MOHD IKHMAL AFIQ BIN SHAMSHURI

Citation

KA-45A-37-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-37-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the prosecution initially established a prima facie case including forensic confirmation of controlled substances and evidence of custody and control, the court found material and probative gaps in the investigation (notably failure to record or call Ashraf), together with contradictions in prosecution witnesses, produced reasonable doubt as to ownership, knowledge and context, such that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was therefore acquitted.
12 Dec 2024

MOHD IKHMAL AFIQ BIN SHAMSHURI

Citation

KA-45-10-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45-10-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although prosecution established prima facie possession and relied on statutory presumption of distribution for the large quantity of methamphetamine, the investigation failed to secure testimony of a material occupant-witness (Ashraf) and contained material inconsistencies among prosecution witnesses; these investigative failures and resulting gaps created reasonable doubt such that the prosecution did not discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal and discharge of the accused.
12 Dec 2024

MOHD IKHMAL AFIQ BIN SHAMSHURI

Citation

KA-45-32-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45-32-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although prosecution established prima facie possession and the statutory presumption of distribution for the 93.21g methamphetamine, the investigating officer failed to take and produce evidence of a material witness (Ashraf) and other investigative lapses and witness inconsistencies created reasonable doubt; on that basis the accused was entitled to be acquitted and discharged.
15 Nov 2024

ABISHEK RAJ A/L RAJESH KANNAN

Citation

BA-45A-150-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-150-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove custody, control and knowledge by the accused to the requisite prima facie standard: material contradictions in police evidence (notably regarding the accused's identity card and inventory procedures), failure to call material co-occupant witnesses and the accused's recorded denials undermined the prosecution case; consequently the statutory presumption under s37 ADB 1952 did not apply and no prima facie case was made out, entitling the accused to benefit of the doubt and acquittal.
29 Feb 2024

MOHAMAD FAEZ BIN MOKTAR

Citation

JA-45A-70-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-70-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove possession (custody, control and knowledge) of the seized drugs by the accused on the evidence tendered; material gaps (uncertainty as to seizure and production of the key, failure to call witnesses or exclude access by others, hearsay rental agreement, absence of personal effects) created reasonable doubt and prevented the invocation of the statutory presumption under s.37(da); therefore no prima facie case was made and the accused must be discharged.