Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty to call witnesses

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2025

MUHAMMAD NUR BIN IBRAHIM

Citation

BA-45A-77-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-77-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case: material gaps and reasonable doubts arose from failure to call key witnesses with access to the unit, ambiguities and unsigned amendments in search-list evidence and uncertainty over who had custody/control of keys and pouch; knowledge and exclusive possession were not established so s.37(da) presumption was inapplicable.
6 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: key alternative owners or persons with access (Hariharan, Suresh/@Fire and other occupants) were not excluded; prosecution failed to secure attendance of essential witnesses and did not produce CCTV/visitor records; existence of unexplained pink bag and unanalysed phones further created reasonable doubt. Adverse inferences under s114(g) Evidence Act were warranted. On maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore accused were acqui…
6 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

WA-45-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: material alternatives (co-occupants and identified suspects) had access to the unit, prosecution failed to call key witnesses and withheld or did not produce material evidence (pink bag, CCTV, visitor book, phones) giving rise to adverse inferences under s114(g); on maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict so accused were acquitted without being called to defend themselves.
9 Feb 2021

1. ) OOI KEAN YONG 2. ) CHENG MOH TING

Citation

PA-42LB-3-02/2020 & PA-42LB-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-42LB-3-02/2020 & PA-42LB-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the prosecution's appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the impugned document was one required by or for the purposes of the Companies Act 1965 (s308) and that the respondents made or authorized the false statement (no proof of signatures/authorization); failure to call material witnesses left irreparable gaps, hence no prima facie case.

Malaysia Case Law

MUHAMMAD NUR BIN IBRAHIM

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

1. ) OOI KEAN YONG 2. ) CHENG MOH TING