Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and control of drugs

Legal area

Court

9 Oct 2024

Muhammad Fairul Lizzan B Abu Hassan [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-148-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-148-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the High Court correctly applied s.37(d) ADB because appellants had custody and control of the vehicle at the material time, similar drugs were found on their persons corroborating knowledge, appellants failed to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities, and the quantity and concealment supported an inference of intent to distribute under s.2 and s.39B ADB; conviction under s.39B(1)(a) read with s.34 Penal Code was therefore upheld though sentence was varied.
26 Jun 2024

MOHD FAIZAL BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-447-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-447-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found overwhelming evidence that the appellant had possession, control and knowledge of the cannabis (surveillance, sole control of vehicle, house rented in his name, DNA evidence and quantity indicative of distribution); the innocent carrier defence was rejected as an afterthought and for wilful blindness; conviction under s.39B(1)(a) DDA 1952 was therefore safe; exercising sentencing discretion under Act 846 the Court substituted the death sentence with life imprisonment of 30 years and 12 strokes for each count, to run concurrently from arrest date.
26 Oct 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TAN CAR CHUN

Citation

CB-45-7-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45-7-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case: although chemical analysis proved the substances were dangerous drugs, the prosecution did not establish possession, control or knowledge by the accused because other persons had access to the room, key evidential witness Lim Yee Chuan was not called and adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 was warranted, and there was insufficient evidence to conclude the acts amounted to trafficking under the statutory definition and purpose approach; accordingly both accused were acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.
15 Feb 2023

MD RUSLIZAM BIN ISHAK

Citation

KA-45A-35-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-35-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of evidence the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession, knowledge and control of the drugs; the defence account of a third party ('Chak') was uncorroborated and implausible, failed to raise reasonable doubt; accordingly convicted under s39B(1)(a) and sentenced under s39B(2A) to life imprisonment and 15 strokes per count, to run concurrently effective 29/6/2017.
13 Jan 2022

PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) AZHARI BIN MUHAMMAD NUR 2. ) MAZRULHISHAM

Citation

PA-45A-48-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-45A-48-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove prima facie that either accused had the necessary control, custody or knowledge of the seized drugs or that they shared a common intention under section 34; material gaps included uncertainty who last had the vehicle, insufficient duration/exclusive access by accused, unreliable inference from passport and lack of fingerprint/DNA linking the accused to the drug-containing bags; accordingly no prima facie case and accused are discharged and acquitted.
22 Sept 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya 1. ) Atchuth Ram Nair A/L Kumar 2. ) Yugendran A/L Mariyapen

Citation

PA-45A-39-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-45A-39-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the charged offence — possession/knowledge of the methamphetamine — on the evidence adduced; circumstantial inferences advanced were insufficient, s27 information was not particularised and material witnesses with potential access to the premises were not established; accordingly no prima facie case existed and accused must be discharged and acquitted.
26 Nov 2019

MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BIN MUKHTAR

Citation

BA-42S-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42S-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the prosecution proved custody/control and knowledge of the cannabis by inference from surrounding circumstances (items found on ironing board, in clothing pocket and in a bag containing appellant's identity documents, supported by credible police evidence and intact chain of custody); the appellant's inconsistent and uncorroborated denials failed to raise a reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence were therefore safe and were affirmed.

Malaysia Case Law

Muhammad Fairul Lizzan B Abu Hassan [ ]

MOHD FAIZAL BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN [ ]

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TAN CAR CHUN

MD RUSLIZAM BIN ISHAK

PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) AZHARI BIN MUHAMMAD NUR 2. ) MAZRULHISHAM

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya 1. ) Atchuth Ram Nair A/L Kumar 2. ) Yugendran A/L Mariyapen

MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BIN MUKHTAR