Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Discharge and acquittal

  • 3 Oct 2025

    DEINIE BIN MUSTAPA

    Citation
    AA-82D-28-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AA-82D-28-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Repeated failures by the prosecution to ensure attendance of material witnesses and prolonged delay in prosecution, despite notices and court directions, created prejudice and uncertainty to the accused; under s.254(3) KTJ the court therefore properly exercised its discretion to order discharge and acquittal (A&D) to prevent continued injustice and abuse of process.

  • 20 Jun 2023

    NAVINRAH A/L K.RAJAH

    Citation
    BA-45A-77-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-77-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Given the prosecution's repeated failure to produce a crucial arresting officer despite ample time, the prolonged detention of the accused (approximately four years), and the absence of assurance when the witness can be produced, the court exercised its discretion under s.254(3) KTJ to order that the discharge amount to an acquittal and accordingly released and acquitted the accused of all charges to avoid continuing unfair uncertainty and prejudice.

  • 23 Jun 2022

    MUHAMMAD ZAMANSARRY BIN ZAMRI

    Citation
    AA-62D-59-03/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AA-62D-59-03/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s39C(1) ADB 1952 because key elements were unproven: contradictions between prosecution witnesses on the sample's condition and handling created reasonable doubt about identity and chain of custody; material discrepancies in signatures raised doubt whether the pathology report had been served on the accused; and the prosecution did not call the chemist or comply with s399 CPC, so the pathology report could not safely be relied upon. Therefore the accused was properly discharged and acquitted.

  • 29 Nov 2019

    PENDAKWARAYA PP LIM YU SING

    Citation
    MB-83-139-12/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    MB-83-139-12/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.506 because the complainant's evidence contained material, credibility‑undermining contradictions with his police report (including inconsistency on the alleged words, actions, and language used), the person who assisted with the FIR was not called (invoking s.114(g) presumptions), and there existed a plausible alternative explanation; applying the maximum evaluation standard the magistrate was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent, therefore discharge and acquittal under s.173(f)(ii) CPC was proper.