Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Distribution/trafficking

Legal area

Court

21 Jan 2026

DEVARAJ A/L ANPALAGAN

Citation

BA-45A-155-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-155-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved identity of drugs but failed to prove accused had the requisite knowledge/possession (mens rea). Evidence showed accused briefly held a wrapped paper bag handed by another who said it contained food, no keys or personal linkage to the flat were found, and multiple searches produced inconsistent results; therefore there was no prima facie case and the accused was discharged without being called to answer.
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…
25 Sept 2025

THIAGARAJAN A/L RAMAN

Citation

K-05(SH)-275-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

K-05(SH)-275-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded the discrepancies in police evidence were immaterial; chain of custody was intact; surrounding circumstances established the appellant's physical control, knowledge and animus possidendi over the seized drugs and the statutory presumption of distribution applied given the heroin weight; accordingly the prosecution proved all elements and the convictions and sentences were safe and must be affirmed.
25 Sept 2025

THIAGARAJAN A/L RAMAN

Citation

K-05(SH)-276-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

K-05(SH)-276-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellate court upheld trial judge's findings: contradictions in prosecution evidence were technical and non‑material, chain of custody was intact, and facts (presence of seized packets, packing equipment and appellant's control) established possession and distribution under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; accordingly convictions and sentences were affirmed.
24 Sept 2025

MOHAMMAD ZULFAHMI BIN MAHMUD

Citation

KA-45A-63-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-63-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although prosecution proved a prima facie case (identity and weight of drug; accused found in physical control of the green bag), the defence raised reasonable doubt as to possession and knowledge and successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of distribution; on the totality of evidence the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.
3 Jun 2025

MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA

Citation

BA-45-56-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-56-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either accused had exclusive possession, control and knowledge of the drugs because of material inconsistencies on where items were found, gaps in police documentation, unresolved chain of custody issues, absence of key evidence (phones, CCTV, police reports) and credible defence evidence; consequently the statutory presumption under section 37(d) ADB was rebutted and the accused must be acquitted.
3 Jun 2025

1. ) MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA 2. ) CHE HASMIDI BIN CHE HASSAN

Citation

BA-45A-148-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-148-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either accused had exclusive control, custody and knowledge of the seized drugs; defence successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under s.37(d) ADB; material evidential gaps (uncertain seizure location, broken chain of custody, failure to produce phones/CCTV/clothing and missing police reports, contradictory witness accounts and negative fingerprint results) created reasonable doubt; therefore accused were acquitted of the specified charges.
3 Jun 2025

MUZAFFAR BIN ZAABA

Citation

BA-45-54-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-54-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court acquitted both accused because prosecution did not prove possession, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt: the location of seizure was unclear, charges were imprecise, there were significant gaps in investigation and chain of custody, material witnesses and evidence (phones, CCTV, clothing) were not produced, and forensic/fingerprint evidence did not link the accused; the defence successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under s37(d) ADB on balance of probabilities.
10 Apr 2025

1. ) Abdul Wahab 2. ) Karikhlan a/l Doraisamy 3. ) MUHAMMAD RAFIQ 4. ) MOHAMED ALI ZINNAH MD SAFI

Citation

WA-45A-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized substances were Ketamine, that OKT1 had possession, control and knowledge of the drugs and that OKT1 and OKT3 participated in acts amounting to distribution and joint intention under section 34; accordingly OKT1 convicted on all three charges and OKT3 convicted on charges two and three; OKT2 and OKT4 discharged for insufficiency of proof.
7 Jan 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KARTHIK A/L KANNATHASAN 2. ) PRAVEEN A/L CHANDRASEGARAN 3. ) MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN MOHD ALI

Citation

WA-45A-56-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-56-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Chemical analysis, intact chain of custody, DNA and personal documents linking the accuseds to the premises and exhibits, plus the statutory presumption (weight >200g) established possession, knowledge and joint intention to distribute; the defence was disbelieved as recent invention and did not rebut the statutory presumption or raise reasonable doubt, therefore conviction was warranted.