Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Knowledge element

  • 2 Dec 2025

    TAN CHENG KIT

    Citation
    J-05(SH)-509-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    J-05(SH)-509-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge's findings that the appellant had custody/control and knowledge of the drugs were supported by compelling evidence — keys and access card in appellant's hand, appellant guided police and opened the unit, extensive incriminating items in plain view, and DNA linking appellant to items — the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s.37(da) DDA on the balance of probabilities and there was no basis to draw an adverse inference for non‑calling of Caroline Tan.

  • 24 Feb 2025

    HO BENG HOCK [ ]

    Citation
    Q-05(SH)-61-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    Q-05(SH)-61-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court upheld the High Court's factual findings that the six Indonesians were unlawfully in Malaysia and were attempting illegal exit via an illicit road at night; the appellant was driving them toward the border and circumstances permitted inference of knowledge or reason to believe they were being smuggled; the wording variation in the charge ('involved' v 'engaged') did not mislead the accused and was curable; therefore prosecution proved the essential elements of s26J ATIPSOM beyond reasonable doubt and conviction and sentence were safe.

  • 29 Apr 2024

    NIK HAZRIHAIRI BIN NIK KASIM [TIMBALAN ]

    Citation
    KA-42R-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-42R-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld convictions and sentences because the prosecution established a prima facie case: evidence (notably SP30 and other prosecution witnesses) proved Appellant 1 gave/posted forged documents and had knowledge of their contents and Appellant 2, as JPJ agent, used those documents to register vehicles; the offences under section 18 MACC Act 2009 are distinct for giver and agent and not a factual or legal impossibility, and the trial judge did not err nor fail to give adequate reasons.

  • 4 Aug 2023

    [ ] 1. ) Mohammad Asyraaf Bin Hashim 2. ) Muhammad Aliff Afiqqi Bin Razali

    Citation
    BA-45A-50-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-50-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had actual possession and knowledge of the seized dangerous drugs linked to them because of reasonable doubt arising from witness inconsistencies about discovery and handling, the credible defence that the material on the table was tobacco, and defects in chain of custody/documentation for the seized samples; accordingly, the accused were acquitted despite application of the distribution presumption for the tin given overall reasonable doubt on ownership and knowledge.

  • 11 Apr 2023

    MOHAMAD ARIFFUDIN BIN MOHAMAD ZULKIFLI

    Citation
    TC-83D-324-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    TC-83D-324-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized substance was methamphetamine (11.20g) and that the accused had possession and knowledge because the drug was found in his hand and he nodded to admit it; the defence account was a bare denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt; accordingly conviction under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was upheld and the sentence of 30 months imprisonment and three strokes of the cane was appropriate and confirmed.