Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing and corporal punishment

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2026

AHNAF AFIQ BIN SHAIRUL BAZRI

Citation

JB-42LB(A)-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JB-42LB(A)-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court erred in law and fact by misapplying s114(g) and incorrectly treating minor discrepancies as material; the prosecution established the elements of s14(a) SOACA 2017 by the victim's credible testimony corroborated by an eyewitness and contemporaneous complaint to her mother; the acquittal was set aside, the accused convicted as charged and appropriately sentenced under SOACA 2017.
23 Jan 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] SUREN A/L RAMACHANDARAN

Citation

WA-45A-28-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-28-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the accused rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking as to intent to traffic but failed to raise a reasonable doubt on possession with knowledge; therefore trafficking charge under section 39B(1)(a) was reduced to possession under section 12(2) DDA and the accused was convicted of possession of 217.95g methamphetamine and of cannabis (95.92g and 0.22g), with concurrent custodial sentences and mandatory whipping as imposed.
7 Aug 2025

SOO LEONG CIN

Citation

BA-62D-87-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62D-87-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution established chain of custody and laboratory confirmation of amphetamine and methamphetamine in the accused's urine; the statutory presumption under s37(k) stood un rebutted by mere bare denial; therefore conviction under s15(1)(a) safe and enhanced sentence under s39C(1) read with s38B appropriate.
5 Oct 2023

EMRAN BIN ABD SANI

Citation

WA-42H-14-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42H-14-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Conviction and sentence were set aside because the accused was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to secure counsel given the pandemic and detention, and because material evidentiary defects (no photographs of the lavatory and irreconcilable discrepancies in signatures on the urine specimen documentation) rendered the conviction unsafe; these combined defects warranted appellate intervention under section 316 CPC.

Malaysia Case Law

AHNAF AFIQ BIN SHAIRUL BAZRI

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] SUREN A/L RAMACHANDARAN

SOO LEONG CIN

EMRAN BIN ABD SANI