Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Presumption under s.37(d) dangerous drugs act 1952

  • 11 Sept 2025

    AMIRUL ISKANDAR BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

    Citation
    NE-83D-300-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    NE-83D-300-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    On the totality of credible evidence—police testimony that only the accused was in his room with a tin plainly in front of him, corroborative photographs and the chemical analysis confirming 8.22g methamphetamine—the court held prosecution proved custody/control sufficient to invoke s.37(d) presumption; the defence failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; therefore the accused was guilty under s.12(2) DDA 1952 and liable under s.39A(1).

    • Possession
    • Presumption under s.37(d) dangerous drugs act 1952
    • Custody and control
    • Chemical analysis evidence
    • Sentencing

  • 18 Apr 2024

    [ ] 1. ) MUHAMMAD AZIZUL HAFIZ BIN WAHIB 2. ) NOOR KAMARUL ZUHAIMI BIN NOORAZMAN LUA

    Citation
    T-09-403-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    T-09-403-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the Pendakwa Raya, holding that the Magistrate's omission to state the s.37(d) presumption at the end of the prosecution case was an oversight that did not occasion substantial injustice given the overwhelming admissible evidence of control and knowledge; appellate re-evaluation of the evidence supported restoration of the Magistrate's conviction and sentence, therefore the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction was incorrect and was overturned.

    • Possession vs control
    • Presumption under s.37(d) dangerous drugs act 1952
    • Section 12(2) and 39a(1) dangerous drugs act 1952
    • Appellate review and standard of intervention
    • Failure of trial court to state legal presumption