Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 37(d) adb 1952

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2025

Irewan Effandy Bin Ismail [ ]

Citation

K-05(SH)-648-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

K-05(SH)-648-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the prosecution proved possession and knowledge of methamphetamine by the appellant on the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt (s.37(d) and s.39B(1)(a) ADB 1952): SP2 was a credible ocular witness whose evidence was materially corroborated by police evidence (SP6), seller testimony (SP7) and investigative records (SP9 and JPJ); omissions by the prosecution (non‑production of the registered owner and of 'Ah Beng') were not material, did not amount to suppression, and did not justify drawing an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950; therefore co…
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.
29 Nov 2022

[ ] NAGATHEVAN A/L MANOHARAN

Citation

BA-45A-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because there was a significant unexplained discrepancy in the weights of the seized items (police 1095g vs chemist 1344.4g/1374.82g) creating reasonable doubt as to identity/continuity of the exhibits, and the prosecution did not prove exclusive control or knowledge by the accused; therefore the presumption under section 37(d) ADB 1952 did not apply and the accused was discharged at the close of the prosecution's case.
19 Aug 2022

[ ] Mathavan A/l Goondarsamy

Citation

BA-45A-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution established identity and weight of the drug but failed to prove the essential elements of possession and knowledge by the accused because there was no evidential nexus showing control, handling or awareness of the hidden package; absence of those elements meant no prima facie case of trafficking existed, therefore the accused was discharged and not called to defend.

Malaysia Case Law

Irewan Effandy Bin Ismail [ ]

Mohammad Firdaus Bin Mohsin [ ]

[ ] NAGATHEVAN A/L MANOHARAN

[ ] Mathavan A/l Goondarsamy