Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 39b dangerous drugs act 1952

Legal area

Court

5 May 2026

1. ) RAMACHANDRAN A/L VERASAMY 2. ) KELANA BIN YUNUS

Citation

05(L)-27-03/2025(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

L
Case number

05(L)-27-03/2025(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Charges were valid (s 34 properly incorporated); the totality of evidence (joint entry, unauthorised keys, motive, DNA, large openly visible drugs) established common intention under s 34 beyond reasonable doubt; failure to call landlord's wife or son did not satisfy prerequisites for an adverse inference under s 114(g); omissions by prior counsel did not meet the high threshold of flagrant incompetency that would vitiate the trial; therefore convictions and sentences are safe and affirmed.
27 Nov 2025

SHAHROAZAHA BIN AHMAD

Citation

BA-45A-61-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-61-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material and non‑mechanical discrepancies between the seizure inventory (P17), handover form (P22) and the physical exhibits, together with contradictions among prosecution witnesses and failure to prove exclusive control, custody or knowledge by the accused, destroyed the prosecution's case; information relied upon under section 27 was inadmissible because police had prior knowledge; on maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case under section 180 CPC and the accused must be acquitted.
15 Oct 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MOHAMAD SUFIAN BIN SAHBUDIN 2. ) MOHD NIZAM BIN POIMAN

Citation

CB-45-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

For charges where drugs were found in an exposed motorcycle basket, the prosecution failed to prove prima facie that OKT1 or OKT2 had possession, knowledge and control because there was no evidence excluding third‑party access, no chain of custody or source of the motorcycle was established and no direct link to either accused; thus no prima facie case for those charges. However, for the amended charge in CB-45-10-04/2023 (1.01g methamphetamine) the prosecution did establish a prima facie case against OKT1 and OKT1 was ordered to be called to enter his defence.
25 Sept 2025

AIZUDDIN BIN AZIZAN [ ]

Citation

W-05(SH)-313-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-313-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings that (1) SP4 was a credible witness whose testimony was corroborated by contemporaneous documents (P38, P35); (2) the chain of custody of the seized cannabis was not broken and identity of exhibits was established; (3) appellants failed, on balance of probabilities, to rebut the statutory presumption of possession/trafficking under section 37(da)(vi); accordingly convictions and sentences were safe and were affirmed.
27 May 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

W-05(LB)-402-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

W-05(LB)-402-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Majority held prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against respondent: SP2's evidence contained significant and unremedied gaps (inconsistent account of forced entry, lack of corroboration, unexplained pink bag, failure to call key witnesses who had access to the unit), and these gaps raised reasonable doubt about possession and possible planting; therefore acquittal by trial judge was correct and appeal dismissed.
14 May 2025

1. ) SITI ASMA BINTI RAMLI 2. ) SAZAIDI BIN SALLEH

Citation

KA-45A-72-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-72-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material and unexplained contradictions between the contemporaneous search/unloading list and police testimony created reasonable doubt as to where and how the drugs were seized and who had custody/knowledge; coupled with absence of evidence of a pre-arranged plan or joint intent to distribute, prosecution failed to establish possession, knowledge or joint distribution at the prima facie stage, therefore accused must be discharged.
27 Mar 2025

MAGENDRAN A/L MUKUNTHAN [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-91-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-91-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had physical possession, custody and control of the drugs and knowledge thereof; the appellant's conduct in directing police to the car/speaker box was admissible under section 27 Evidence Act 1950 and established knowledge; procedural failures (non-production of CCTV/fingerprints/DNA and non-calling of owner Ramesh) were not fatal as such evidence is corroborative or not withheld and did not raise reasonable doubt; therefore conviction and sentence…
24 Mar 2025

AHMAD FAHMI BIN MOHD HASNU [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

B-05(SH)-232-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-232-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant had custody and control of the bag containing the drugs and possessed the requisite knowledge, based on contemporaneous police observations of the appellant reaching for the bag, exclusive control of the vehicle at the material time, inconsistent and fabricated defence evidence, and the large quantity of methamphetamine giving rise to an inference of trafficking; accordingly the presumption under s.37(d) stood and conviction under s.39B was sustained.
24 Mar 2025

MUHAMAD SHAM BIN AZEMI [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(M)-113-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-113-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the prosecution proved actual possession, knowledge and control of the seized methamphetamine by the appellant on both charges based on SP3's testimony, CCTV, the appellant's conduct in carrying and placing packages and leading police to the Kelisa, the presence of the appellant's passport in the car and the remote keys found in his apartment. Given the quantities seized, the statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) DDA 1952 applied and the appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities. The trial judge did not err in evaluating credibility and rej…
6 Mar 2025

1. ) RAMACHANDRAN A/L VERASAMY 2. ) KELANA BIN YUNUS

Citation

P-05(SH)-595-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

P-05(SH)-595-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings: on the totality of unchallenged evidence (DNA on personal items, large quantities of drugs and processing equipment, tenancy indicators and seizure circumstances) the appellants had joint possession, control and knowledge of the drugs; omissions in the charge (s.34) and failure to call certain family members were not fatal; no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments warranted appellate intervention, therefore convictions and sentences stand.