Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

S114(g) evidence act

  • 15 Oct 2025

    [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMAD SUFIAN BIN SAHBUDIN

    Citation
    CB-45-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CB-45-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution proved the identity of the seized substances but failed to show a prima facie link of knowledge, control or exclusive possession by either accused to the drugs found in an exposed motorcycle basket, except for the amended charge against OKT1 in CB-45-10-04/2023 where the evidence warranted calling OKT1 to enter defence; all other charges lacked prima facie evidence and both accused were acquitted and discharged on those counts.

  • 14 Jul 2025

    MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Court unanimously held prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs (including 845g cannabis) by circumstantial evidence (bag held by appellant, car registered to appellant, keys and personal items found); failure to call alleged co-user did not amount to suppression under s114(g); absence of fingerprint/DNA was not fatal; appellant failed to rebut presumption under s37(d) ADB and innocent carrier defence failed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

  • 3 Jul 2023

    SUJINI SDN BHD HLSL MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS SDN BHD

    Citation
    JA-12BNCvC-35-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-12BNCvC-35-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court found no error in the trial judge’s findings: the written SPA (P1) provided for a 20% deposit and permitted entry but not transfer until full payment; the vendor granted time extensions and there was no reliable evidence that a new SPA was required by the bank; payment of late interest by the purchaser acknowledged failure to comply with P1; accordingly the termination and forfeiture of deposit were lawful and the purchaser was not entitled to recover renovation costs or the deposit. The Sessions Court judgment was therefore affirmed.

  • 7 Jul 2022

    Ahrjun A/l Chandran [ ]

    Citation
    B-05(M)-183-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-183-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Conviction for trafficking under s39B(1)(a) was unsafe because the trial judge failed to state whether he relied on direct evidence or statutory presumptions (s37(d)/s37(da)); however, on the evidence the appellant did have possession of the drugs and the trafficking conviction is substituted with a conviction for possession (s6) and sentenced to 13 years and 10 strokes. Other convictions under s12(2) were upheld but one sentence reduced to 3 years where the original sentence exceeded statutory maximum.