Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 90a evidence act 1950

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2026

MUTHU A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

JK-83-51-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JK-83-51-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Section 121B(6) of the Customs Act 1967, by its 'notwithstanding' wording, renders documents obtained by customs officers prima facie evidence in proceedings under the Act and therefore permits admission of the listed non-chemical documents (ID50, ID60, ID62, ID64A-C, ID66A-E, ID68A-D) without calling the original makers or producing Evidence Act certificates; however, chemical analysis reports ID39 and ID54 are excluded because section 121 (which applies only to 'summons' cases) does not cover this warrant-type case and the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory service requirements…
18 Dec 2025

ORG VS SDN BHD ZHOU JIANMEI

Citation

WA-11BNCvC-24-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BNCvC-24-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SD1 possessed implied and ostensible authority to negotiate rental variations and the respondent's prolonged acquiescence to reduced payments gave rise to estoppel; the Magistrate's exclusion of the payment summary was erroneous given SD1's testimony; the respondent failed to prove repair costs with admissible evidence; accordingly the Magistrate's awards for RM37,435.66 (arrears) and RM3,000 (repairs) are unsustainable and are set aside, and costs awarded to the appellant.
30 Sept 2025

PROVENTUS BINA SDN BHD FORTIS STAR SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCC-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly admitted the computer-produced invoices and statements based on witness evidence proving production in the ordinary course; the Defendant was estopped from denying receipt of delivered goods given delivery orders and prior conduct; the 1.5% monthly late payment interest term was incorporated by the Defendant's conduct; there was no manifest error warranting appellate intervention, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment is affirmed with costs.
28 Feb 2024

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MING RITZ SDN. BHD.

Citation

BL-12BNCvC-24-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12BNCvC-24-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial judge correctly excluded key computer-generated documents as exhibits because Section 90A certificates were produced after witnesses had given evidence causing prejudice and denying fair opportunity to cross-examine; plaintiff failed to prove meter was attached and functioning for the unbilled period and therefore failed to discharge burden to prove RM108,002.74; appellate court found no basis to disturb these factual and evidentiary findings and dismissed the appeal.
27 Apr 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Gan Choo Yong

Citation

AB-42S-14-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-42S-14-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

P3, a computer-generated printout from the weighing machine, was admissible without a s90A(2) certificate because SP4, who operated the machine and retrieved P3 in the presence of the defendant's representative, gave uncontroverted oral evidence establishing production, the machine's proper working condition and ordinary use; that evidence, together with corroborating documents and testimony proving ownership, established the offence beyond reasonable doubt, warranting affirmation of conviction while permitting reduction of the fine from RM50,000 to RM40,000 under s316(b)(ii) CPC.
11 Nov 2019

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA HARPAJAN KAUR A/P DELIB SINGH

Citation

PA-83-949-09/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-83-949-09/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found prosecution proved the elements of s29(1) beyond reasonable doubt because the accused was the registered account holder, personally made counter withdrawals consistent with knowledge of funds, had opportunities and means to inquire or report suspicious deposits given her knowledge of her husband's bankruptcy, and her testimony was inconsistent and uncredible; late but admissible s90A evidence and absence of Patmendar did not create a fatal gap.

Malaysia Case Law

MUTHU A/L MUNIANDY

ORG VS SDN BHD ZHOU JIANMEI

PROVENTUS BINA SDN BHD FORTIS STAR SDN BHD

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MING RITZ SDN. BHD.

PENDAKWARAYA Gan Choo Yong

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA HARPAJAN KAUR A/P DELIB SINGH