Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Presumption of possession

  • 16 Dec 2025

    SUKKERI BIN SALLEH

    Citation
    JD-82D-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JD-82D-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court accepted chemical identification that seized material contained Mitragynine but found prosecution failed to prove possession by accused because premises were used by others, evidence conflicted as to location of seizure, investigators did not secure keys or conduct adequate forensic linkage, and prosecution failed to call/offer DSP Ng despite early notice; gaps were material and prosecution did not make out a prima facie case, so accused acquitted without calling defence.

  • 30 Jul 2025

    TAY CHER BOON [ ]

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-370-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-370-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The trial judge misapplied the law by invoking the s.37(d) presumption while finding facts amounting to direct possession (custody, control and knowledge), thereby imposing a higher burden on the appellant; the trafficking conviction was unsafe on the evidence and substituted convictions for possession under s.12(2) were appropriate; appeal allowed and sentences substituted accordingly.

  • 7 Mar 2025

    AHMAD FARIDZ BIN MOHD FADZIL

    Citation
    AB-42S-4-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    AB-42S-4-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved custody/control and knowledge of the cannabis plants and seeds, chain of custody and chemical identity were established, the appellant's mother corroborated he admitted cultivating the plants, the s.6B(4) presumption applied and was not rebutted on balance of probabilities, the defence was a bare denial and alternative access was not established; therefore convictions and sentences were upheld.

  • 28 Jan 2025

    MEGALA NATHAN A/L MARIAPPAN [ ]

    Citation
    N-09(H)-224-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    H
    Case number
    N-09(H)-224-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Omission by the learned Magistrate to expressly state at the close of the prosecution's case that she invoked the presumption under s.37(d) DDA 1952 did not amount to a miscarriage of justice because s.180 CPC does not require the trial judge to state reasons or identify invoked presumptions when calling for defence and the Magistrate's judgment demonstrated she applied the presumption; conviction and sentence are safe.

  • 2 Dec 2024

    MUHAMMAD SABREE BIN ABD WAHAB

    Citation
    TE-83D-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    TE-83D-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    At the close of the prosecution the court found a prima facie case and called the accused to defence. After hearing defence evidence the court applied the maximum evaluation test and concluded defence evidence created a reasonable doubt as to exclusive possession and knowledge due to presence of other persons/motorcycle, unresolved issues in investigation and credibility gaps in prosecution witnesses; accordingly the accused was acquitted and discharged.

  • 5 Nov 2024

    LEE SEE WEI

    Citation
    KA-45A-57-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45A-57-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Although prosecution established the drugs and chain of custody to a prima facie standard, the defence adduced credible sworn evidence (SD2) identifying himself as owner and exposing significant investigative gaps and inconsistencies (absence of fingerprint/DNA analysis, factual conflicts in police testimony and plausible alternative narrative) which created reasonable doubt; on full consideration of all evidence the court concluded the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

  • 2 Aug 2023

    Mohammad Firdaus Bin Mohsin [ ]

    Citation
    B-05(M)-501-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-501-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held the High Court correctly applied the presumption under s.37(d) ADB 1952 and made an affirmative finding of possession and knowledge; the appellant failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities based on credible testimony (SP4, SP5, SP6) and logical inference, so the conviction and death sentence were safe and must be affirmed.

  • 20 Sept 2022

    MOHAMAD ZULAZWAN BIN SAALI [ ]

    Citation
    B-05(M)-54-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-54-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court affirmed Zulazwan's conviction because possession and trafficking were proved: he admitted ownership of the suitcase before arrest, DNA from a towel in the suitcase matched him, his conduct (attempting to flee) and surrounding circumstances established wilful blindness and knowledge, and the statutory presumption of possession was not rebutted; conversely the Court allowed Mahendara's appeal because there was insufficient independent evidence linking him to the drugs — the CCTV was indeterminate, no call records were produced to corroborate alleged phone contact, and Zulazwan's test…

  • 20 Sept 2022

    MAHENDARA RAO A/L SURUNARAYANA [ ]

    Citation
    B-05(M)-55-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-55-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Zulazwan's conviction and death sentence were upheld because the Court found he was in custody of the suitcase, DNA linked him to the suitcase, his conduct and surrounding circumstances established wilful blindness defeating the innocent carrier defence and satisfied possession and trafficking elements; Mahendara's conviction was unsafe because there was no independent or corroborated evidence linking him to the drugs or demonstrating common intention, CCTV and phone evidence were inadequate and his conviction and sentence were set aside.

  • 7 Jan 2021

    PHAN KIM TUNG (NO. PASSPORT: C3800718) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

    Citation
    JB-42H-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JB-42H-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had custody and control of the black bag containing the controlled substances and had the requisite knowledge (animus possidendi); statutory presumption s.37(d) and corroborative eyewitness and expert forensic evidence sustained conviction; the defence of innocent carrier and wilful blindness failed and the absence of the co-accused did not justify an adverse inference against the prosecution; convictions and sentences were therefore affirmed.