Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Identity of exhibit

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2026

WAHID AIDIL BIN WAHID ANUAL

Citation

DH-83D-794-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DH-83D-794-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material discrepancies in the number of tablets (and related photographic evidence) together with an unexplained gap in the chain of custody between storage registration and delivery to the chemist raised reasonable doubt as to the identity of the analysed exhibit; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to enter his defence and he was discharged and acquitted without being called to defend.
30 Oct 2025

MUHAMMAD AMIRUL HAKIMI BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

AB-82D-15-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-82D-15-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because a material discrepancy in the chain of custody—specifically a date mismatch between the bottle label and the custody form prepared by the arresting officer—created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the urine sample; without reliable identity of the exhibit the laboratory analysis lacked probative value and the accused was discharged under Criminal Procedure Code s173(f)(ii).
8 Oct 2025

MOHAMMAD ZULFIKAR BIN AZHARI

Citation

JD-82D-4-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JD-82D-4-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s15(1)(a) ADB because material and unexplained discrepancies as to the identity and labeling of the urine bottle (photographs vs physical exhibit), admissions of post‑collection marking by investigators and unresolved risk of contamination broke the chain of custody and created reasonable doubt as to whether the specimen analysed belonged to the accused; accordingly the accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.
18 Sept 2025

NGH WAI PENG

Citation

BA-62D-66-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62D-66-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court held prosecution proved possession and identity for two exhibits (one cannabis packet and one packet of nimetazepam) with an intact chain of custody and accepted laboratory analysis for those packets; however material and unexplained discrepancies between officers' description (five packets of dried leaves alleged as cannabis) and laboratory results (four packets testing as methamphetamine crystalline) created reasonable doubt as to identity for the counts alleging 36.35g methamphetamine, requiring acquittal on that case; accordingly accused convicted on two counts (0.21g nimetazepam an…
26 Jun 2023

GOH CHENG CHENG

Citation

AB-83D-693-07/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-83D-693-07/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because there was a material, unexplained discrepancy in the serial number identifying the accused's urine bottle and the prosecution failed to investigate or explain the amendment or produce the original exhibit, the identity of the sample was in doubt and the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case; the accused was therefore discharged at the close of the prosecution case under s173(f)(ii) CPC.
22 Sept 2022

MOHAMAD AZUANDI BIN MAT [ ]

Citation

AA-41S(A)-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

AA-41S(A)-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because unexplained discrepancy in the identity of the urine sample (difference in number of seals) and non‑compliance with IGSO F103 and KKM Guidelines (which the court held to have force of law) created reasonable doubt; consequently the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence were unsafe and set aside.
27 May 2021

PENDAKWARAYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIYAKAMURTHI A/L PONNUSAMY

Citation

BK – 62D – 22 – 07/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK – 62D – 22 – 07/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Material and unexplained contradictions among prosecution witnesses about the urine specimen collection and the absence of an identifying 'K' mark on photographic exhibits undermined identity and chain of custody of the specimen; therefore the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case and the accused was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.

Malaysia Case Law

WAHID AIDIL BIN WAHID ANUAL

MUHAMMAD AMIRUL HAKIMI BIN ABDULLAH

MOHAMMAD ZULFIKAR BIN AZHARI

NGH WAI PENG

GOH CHENG CHENG

MOHAMAD AZUANDI BIN MAT [ ]

PENDAKWARAYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIYAKAMURTHI A/L PONNUSAMY