Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prima facie test under s180 cpc

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2024

[ ] 1. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN MAT SENAWI 2. ) MISS CHEHWOH RUSNANEE

Citation

KA-45A-35-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-35-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove the existence of a hidden/special compartment to engage the statutory presumption under s37(h) ADB 1952, and there was insufficient evidence to infer possession, knowledge or common intention by OKT1 and OKT2; therefore accused were discharged without being called to enter defence.
31 May 2022

BA-45A-118-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-45A-118-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-118-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

After maximum appraisal of prosecution evidence the court found multiple plausible inferences inconsistent with exclusive possession, control or knowledge by accused: vehicle was not owned by accused, third parties had access, DNA on steering excluded accused, prosecution failed to call material witnesses (owner/lender) and did not rebut alternative inferences; therefore statutory presumption s37(d) did not apply and no prima facie case of possession/trafficking under s39B(1)(a) was established, so accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.
21 Jan 2022

[ ] MOHAMMAD ASYIDDIQ BIN ABUZAR

Citation

BA-45A-15-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-15-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge due to lack of nexus between accused and recovered drugs and reasonable doubt in chain of custody (possible mixing with separate seizure from SP8); therefore no prima facie case under s39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 and accused must be discharged under s180(4) CPC.
21 Dec 2021

1. ) MUHAMMAD FITRI BIN SAAD 2. ) EDDY SAIFUIAN BIN HAMZAH 3. ) MOHD ZAMBRI BIN AHMAD

Citation

RA-45A-5-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-45A-5-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material contradictions between the arresting officer's oral evidence and contemporaneous documentary exhibits (search/seizure forms and sketch) as to where and when the drugs were found defeated the prosecution's ability to prove prima facie that the accused had possession (control/care/knowledge). Under ss91–92 Evidence Act oral evidence cannot be used to vary written records; accordingly prosecution failed to establish the possession element required for s39B offences and the accused were properly acquitted at the close of the prosecution under s180 CPC.
17 Jan 2020

PENDAKWARAYA MOHAMMAD HABIBULLAH BIN MOHD NADZRI

Citation

45-16-05/2017 & 45A-45-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

45-16-05/2017 & 45A-45-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution evidence was credible and reliable: eyewitness police witnesses consistently observed the accused holding the revolver with his finger on the trigger, heard the accused utter threats, a discharge occurred and ballistic and forensic analysis linked the cartridge and pill to the exhibited items; defence account of accidental discharge was untested and implausible given the totality of evidence and admissions by accused; therefore all elements of s3 Firearms Act 1971 and s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 were proven beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was convicted and sentenced ac…

Malaysia Case Law

[ ] 1. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN MAT SENAWI 2. ) MISS CHEHWOH RUSNANEE

BA-45A-118-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

[ ] MOHAMMAD ASYIDDIQ BIN ABUZAR

1. ) MUHAMMAD FITRI BIN SAAD 2. ) EDDY SAIFUIAN BIN HAMZAH 3. ) MOHD ZAMBRI BIN AHMAD

PENDAKWARAYA MOHAMMAD HABIBULLAH BIN MOHD NADZRI