Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert chemical analysis

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

ON SEMICONDUCTOR MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

NA-42ES-4-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-42ES-4-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: because there was irreconcilable and credible conflicting scientific evidence (government lab 1.04 mg/L versus independent labs 0 and 0.002 mg/L), material and undocumented departures in the prosecution's sampling and chain of custody procedures, and the prosecution's failure to produce its SOPs, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the effluent contained Cadmium above Standard B; appeal dismissed and acquittal affirmed.
18 Dec 2025

AZNAN BIN OSMAN

Citation

RA-82D-5-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

RA-82D-5-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material procedural defects (use of expired test strip at initial screening), unresolved inconsistencies in witness evidence and incomplete investigation undermined the reliability of the screening and chain of custody under s31A(1A); benefit of doubt given to accused and acquittal entered.
26 Aug 2025

AHMAD MUNIR BIN HAJI HAMZAH

Citation

WA-62D-517-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62D-517-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized material was cannabis weighing 52.71 grams and that the accused had physical control and knowledge of it (it was in his front pocket and he produced it); chain of custody was intact; defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; accordingly accused guilty under Section 6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and liable under Section 39A(2).
22 May 2025

[ ] SIVACHANDRAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

PA-45A-18-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-45A-18-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved identity and quantity of drug (methamphetamine 209.7g) by credible chemist evidence and maintained chain of custody; eyewitness police evidence established the bag was worn by accused so accused had possession and knowledge; quantity activated s37(da) presumption of trafficking which accused failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; therefore guilty under s39B(1)(a) and liable to sentence under s39B(2).
31 Jan 2024

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] LOKE SEEN YOONG

Citation

WA-45A-25-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-25-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Evidence established physical possession and proximity (packet in trouser pocket and bag beside driver in car owned and driven by accused), chemist confirmed meth and chain of custody was intact, statutory presumption of trafficking applied to 191.6g and accused failed to rebut it on balance of probabilities; guilty verdict and concurrent custodial sentences follow.
14 Sept 2023

HIEW KEA CEE

Citation

JA-83D-1236-02/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83D-1236-02/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although the chemist confirmed the substance as methamphetamine (net 5.09g) and an eyewitness observed the accused discard the pouch, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain material and contemporaneous discrepancies in gross weights recorded across police documents and witness re-weighings (notably 12.04g vs 12.78g vs chemist 11.7809g). Those unexplained discrepancies undermined the chain of custody and the identity of the exhibits, creating reasonable doubt such that no prima facie case was established; accused therefore discharged at close of prosecution.
4 Mar 2022

1. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN ISHAK 2. ) URWAH BIN ZULFAHMY 3. ) FARID ISKANDAR BIN ZAINUDDIN 4. ) AHMAD RAFSANJANI ZAIN BIN MOHD ZAIN

Citation

NA-62D-26-03/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62D-26-03/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the chemical analysis confirmed the seized material was cannabis totalling c.933.35 grams, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had control, custody or knowledge of the drugs. The premises were openly accessible and shared by many persons; no incriminating articles were found on the accused; prosecution did not exclude access by others or call relevant witnesses to fill gaps. Juxtaposition of accused and packages was insufficient to establish possession; therefore there was no prima facie case and the accused were discharged and acquitted.
31 Dec 2021

[ ] KASTURI A/P NARAYANASAMY

Citation

BA-45A-121-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-121-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody and failed to establish that the accused had possession and knowledge of the MDMA; absent proof of possession no prima facie case of trafficking was made out under section 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952; accused discharged and released without being called to defend.
12 Aug 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya Inthiran A/l Rajendran

Citation

BA-45A-72-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-72-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because although the substance was chemical-analytically established as methamphetamine weighing 16,599.8g, the evidence did not establish that the accused had possession and knowledge of that substance: the drugs were concealed in multiple layers, the accused was a passenger while the deceased/co-accused controlled the vessel, there was no evidence linking the accused to the container, and material investigative deficiencies and the prosecution’s failure to call or secure material witnesses (owner Madhavan) and forensic evidence (fingerprint…
22 Apr 2021

SHAHFARY BIN SABRI

Citation

WA-45A-13-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-13-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Drugs physically found tucked in the accused's waistband, credible evidence established an unbroken chain of custody and expert analysis confirmed 149.5g methamphetamine exceeding statutory threshold; prosecution therefore proved possession and the statutory presumption of trafficking applied and was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities; conviction under s39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 and mandatory sentence under s39B(2) followed.