Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Innocent carrier

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2025

MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

Citation

B-05(SH)-350-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-350-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the conviction safe because prosecution proved that the appellant had control, custody and knowledge of the drugs by credible circumstantial evidence (drugs in bag held by appellant, vehicle registered to him, keys and personal items found), the innocent carrier defence was not established and the failure to call the co-occupant was not a material non-production that would invoke s.114(g); absence of fingerprint/DNA evidence did not create reasonable doubt given the totality of evidence.
14 Jul 2025

MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

Citation

B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court unanimously held prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs (including 845g cannabis) by circumstantial evidence (bag held by appellant, car registered to appellant, keys and personal items found); failure to call alleged co-user did not amount to suppression under s114(g); absence of fingerprint/DNA was not fatal; appellant failed to rebut presumption under s37(d) ADB and innocent carrier defence failed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
14 Jul 2025

MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

Citation

B-05(SH)-340-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-340-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that circumstantial and direct evidence (appellant holding the bag, possession of car keys, car registered to appellant, personal effects in car, chemical analysis) established control, custody and knowledge of the drugs and that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under section 37(d) ADB 1952; failure to call the co-occupant did not amount to suppression of material evidence and absence of fingerprints/DNA did not create reasonable doubt given the totality of reliable evidence, therefore conviction and sentence were safe and aff…
24 Jun 2025

[ ] Hu Teng Tai

Citation

BA-45A-38-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-38-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although drugs (1510.4g methamphetamine) were physically affixed to accused, the court found prosecution failed to prove accused's knowledge and intent to distribute beyond reasonable doubt; accused's consistent testimony, background and demeanour rendered s37(d) presumption rebutted and wilful blindness was not established, therefore accused entitled to acquittal.
3 Jun 2025

[ ] MUHAMAD SYAFIQ BIN ROSLI

Citation

KA-45A-27-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-27-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence the court found the chemist's analysis reliable and the chain of custody sufficiently established despite a missing single marked packet; accused was sole driver in close proximity to 533 compressed blocks totalling 507,965.60 grams and had custody, control and knowledge (inference from close proximity, concealment, strong odour and demeanor); transporting a very large concealed quantity satisfied the overt act required for trafficking under s.2 and s.39B DDA 1952; therefore prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt and the court lawfull…
18 Dec 2024

Mohd Yusrizan Bin Mohd Yusof [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-141-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-141-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had knowledge and shared common intention to traffic 3,806.7 grams of methamphetamine; the defences were uncredible, constituted afterthoughts, and the 'innocent carrier' plea failed because reasonable suspicions and opportunity to inspect existed (wilful blindness). Conviction under s.39B upheld; sentence of death set aside and substituted with 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes under discretionary sentencing post-Act 846.
18 Dec 2024

Kevin Liang Chin Boon [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-140-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-140-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of evidence the Court of Appeal found prosecution proved possession and common intention beyond reasonable doubt; the innocent carrier defence failed because the second appellant had reasonable suspicions and opportunity to inspect the bag and deliberately refrained (wilful blindness); official witnesses' evidence was reliable; conviction under s39B(1)(a) upheld, but pursuant to discretionary sentencing post-Act 846 the second appellant's death sentence was commuted to imprisonment of 30 years and 12 strokes.
21 Mar 2024

1. ) MOHD HAKIM BIN ABDUL AZIZ 2. ) MUHAMMAD FARID BIN ISMAIL

Citation

TA-82D-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-82D-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities at the close of defence the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s.37(d) DDA 1952; his innocent‑carrier explanation was unreasonable on the facts and DW2's evidence did not sufficiently exculpate him; therefore prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and conviction followed.
8 Aug 2023

YAP YEE HUAT [ ]

Citation

B-05-266-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

B-05-266-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the trial judge correctly rejected the innocent carrier defence because the appellant exhibited wilful blindness; there was no basis for an adverse inference under s114(g) because the prosecution could not locate Kelvin and Tai from the details given; s39B(2A) had been repealed so the mandatory death sentence was set aside and substituted with life imprisonment (treated as 30 years) and 12 strokes; conviction was therefore affirmed and sentence substituted.
31 Jan 2023

1. ) R. KARUPPIAH @ RAJA A/L RAMASAMY 2. ) LEMAN COLLINS OSUJI

Citation

BA-45A-100-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-100-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to prove mens rea/knowledge for OKT1 regarding the sealed parcel and failed to prove physical control or custody by OKT2; investigative gaps and contradictions meant no safe inference of possession or common intention could be drawn, therefore no prima facie case existed and both accused were to be acquitted and discharged without being called to enter defence.