Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Self-administration of dangerous drugs

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2026

RAJALINGAM A/L ANGAMUTHU

Citation

AC-83D-574-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AC-83D-574-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved the presence of scheduled drugs in the accused's urine and established an unbroken chain of custody tying the tested sample to the accused; statutory presumption under s37(k) applied and the accused's unsworn denial was unsupported and not credible, therefore guilt under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was proved beyond reasonable doubt and conviction and sentence were warranted.
21 Nov 2025

SUGUMARAN A/L MURUGAYA

Citation

BA-62D-45-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62D-45-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On maximum evaluation of all evidence and documents the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused provided the urine sample which tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine; the statutory presumption under s37(k) was not rebutted; chain of custody and sample admissibility were satisfactory under s31A(1A); therefore conviction under s15(1)(a) read with s39C(2) was proper and the prescribed enhanced sentence applied.
15 Dec 2023

MUHAMMAD REZA BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-82D-22-07/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-82D-22-07/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found that the prosecution proved a prima facie case: the accused’s urine sample was properly collected, sealed and laboratory-confirmed positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine; the statutory presumption under section 37(k) DDA applied; defence explanations (contamination, test procedure, alleged 'ubat kuat') did not raise a credible reasonable doubt when tested against the prosecution evidence; one bottle collection and internal guidelines’ non-compliance did not defeat admissibility. Therefore the accused was convicted under section 15(1)(a) DDA on both charges and sentenced…
10 Aug 2023

MOHD AZHAR BIN LAMSAH

Citation

WA-42S-9-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42S-9-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge misdirected herself by applying inconsistent burdens (treating the accused as having failed both to raise reasonable doubt and to displace the statutory presumption without proper application of law), and because conflicting test results (field test showing methamphetamine vs pathology report showing morphine) together with signature discrepancies created reasonable doubt as to the identity and content of the urine sample; prosecution therefore failed to prove self-administration beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was unsafe and set aside.
22 Dec 2022

SHAHZAM MAHMUD BIN AHMAD ZAKI

Citation

AB-82D-10-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-82D-10-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found a material breach of s31A(1A) DDA 1952 because the direct request to provide a urine specimen was made by a corporal (SP4) and there was no evidence the request was made by an officer not below the rank of sergeant; consequently the single urine sample was excluded as inadmissible and, coupled with unexplained discrepancies between preliminary screening and confirmatory tests and unresolved issues about single-bottle procedure, the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and the accused was discharged and acquitted.
19 Oct 2022

MOHAMAD FADHILAH BIN BANTUT [ ]

Citation

AA-41S(A)-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

AA-41S(A)-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the single urine sample was inadmissible where presumptive screening and confirmatory testing occurred at different locations without collection of a duplicate sample as required by the procedural safeguards in the MOH Guideline and as read with IGSO F103; the Prosecution therefore failed to make out a prima facie case and the conviction was unsafe, compounded by additional evidential discrepancies, and the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant acquitted.
14 Sept 2021

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MOHAMAD ZUHAILI BIN ZAINAL

Citation

JB-42S-3-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42S-3-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

After independent scrutiny of the record the High Court found the prosecution established chain of custody and reliable GCMS results showing amphetamine and methamphetamine in the accused's urine, defence challenges were unsubstantiated and amounted to afterthoughts, previous convictions were admissible as public records, and the sentence of six years' imprisonment and one stroke was within the statutory range and proper; conviction was therefore safe though the court added a two-year supervision order under the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983.
14 Sept 2021

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MOHAMAD ZUHAILI BIN ZAINAL

Citation

JB-42H-6-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42H-6-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court, upon full re-evaluation of the record, found the prosecution proved chain of custody and GCMS results and that defence challenges were unsubstantiated or afterthoughts not put to relevant witnesses; prior convictions were properly proved by court records; conviction under s15(1)(a) DDA 1952 punishable under s39C was therefore safe and sentence was legal; appeal against conviction dismissed and prosecution appeal allowed in part to impose two years' post‑release supervision under the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act.
20 Aug 2021

AHMAD ZAILANI BIN SHAMSUDIN [NRIC NO: 810703-08-5755] PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

AA-42H-10-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42H-10-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal failed because the chemist report confirming the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine was only available on 23.8.2019, so the self-administration charge could not have been validly preferred on 22.8.2019; therefore the single transaction rule did not apply to force concurrency and the sentencing commencement rules (s.282 and s.292 CPC) support the Sessions Court's sentence; appeal dismissed.