Appeal against conviction and sentence
14 cases · February 2025 to August 2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Section 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 9(1) of the Poison Act 1952 — Whether the elements of possession and knowledge was proven — Whether preparatory acts amount to trafficking — Whether the presumption of adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 can only be drawn if there has been withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence — Whether failure to cross-examine the accused persons was fatal to the prosecution’s case — Whether High Court Judge had considered and evaluated the defence in its entirety 5 Section 405 & Section 403 Penal Code — Section 4(1)(b) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 — Abetment — Criminal Breach of Trust — Dishonest misappropriation of property — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in failing to decide that there was no offence as per the charges even if all the prosecution evidence was unrebutted or unexplained — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred when his Lordship failed to assess the credibility of the main prosecution witnesses — Whether the Learned High Court Judge failed to take into consideration and/or appreciate the ingredients and requirements of s. 405 PC and consequently failed to conclude that the Appellant’s act did not amount to an offence under s. 405 of the PC read together with s. 109 of the PC — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in deciding that there was a prima facie case of the AMLA charges given that the AMLA charges were predicated on the s.403 charge — Failure to consider all the evidence which is the key aspects of s.182A (1) Criminal Procedure Court 3 Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case — Whether custody, control and possession were proven — Whether there was a failure to administer the caution as required under section 37B(1)(b) DDA 1952 — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in rejecting the evidence of defence witnesses 1 Section 302 of the Penal Code — Whether the learned Judicial Commissioner was correct in fact and law in finding that it was the Appellant who inflicted the injuries to the deceased’s head and face and thereby caused the death of the deceased — Whether the absence of bloodstains or DNA evidence on the Appellant’s clothing and footwear created a reasonable doubt — Whether the Appellant’s voluntary intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intention or knowledge. 1 Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the Appellant was in possession of the impugned drugs and had knowingly trafficked in the said drugs — Whether there was a failure to conduct proper investigations and to call material witnesses — Whether the learned Judge erred in not considering the alleged common intention between Samuk, PW5, and Elyana in relation to the trafficking offence. 1 Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping — Whether the flagrant incompetence of the trial counsel resulted in a breach of the Appellant fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial — Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding the Appellant in mens rea and presumed possession under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding simultaneous actual and presumed trafficking under sections 2 and 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. 1 s.471 of the Penal Code and punishable under s.465 of the same Code — a finding of a prima facie case was made at the end of prosecution case and defence called — issues raised — duplicity of charges — contravention of s.163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) — whether mere irregularity curable under s.422 of the CPC — whether testimony of PW4 tantamount to adducing evidence of bad character of appellant so as to show / insinuate the propensity of appellant to commit forgery thus inadmissible under s.54 of the Evidence Act, 1950 1 Section 26J of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2009 (“ATIPSOM”) — smuggling of migrants — Conveyance of smuggled migrants — Whether the six (6) Indonesians are “smuggled migrants” — Section 2 of the ATIPSOM — Whether the Appellant was misled by the charge preferred against him — Whether the charge against the Appellant was defective by the fact that the word “involved” was stated in the charge instead of the word “engages” as per section 26J of ATIPSOM. 1
Section 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 9(1) of the Poison Act 1952 — Whether the elements of possession and knowledge was proven — Whether preparatory acts amount to trafficking — Whether the presumption of adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 can only be drawn if there has been withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence — Whether failure to cross-examine the accused persons was fatal to the prosecution’s case — Whether High Court Judge had considered and evaluated the defence in its entirety 5 cases
n-05m-108-03-2023 Salim Sabeer v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
n-05m-109-03-2023 Abdul Kalam Sajeev v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
n-05m-110-03-2023 Radhakrishnan Syam v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
n-05m-111-03-2023 Sainulabdeen Siyad v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
n-05m-112-03-2023 Fazil Farook v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
Section 405 & Section 403 Penal Code — Section 4(1)(b) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 — Abetment — Criminal Breach of Trust — Dishonest misappropriation of property — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in failing to decide that there was no offence as per the charges even if all the prosecution evidence was unrebutted or unexplained — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred when his Lordship failed to assess the credibility of the main prosecution witnesses — Whether the Learned High Court Judge failed to take into consideration and/or appreciate the ingredients and requirements of s. 405 PC and consequently failed to conclude that the Appellant’s act did not amount to an offence under s. 405 of the PC read together with s. 109 of the PC — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in deciding that there was a prima facie case of the AMLA charges given that the AMLA charges were predicated on the s.403 charge — Failure to consider all the evidence which is the key aspects of s.182A (1) Criminal Procedure Court 3 cases
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case — Whether custody, control and possession were proven — Whether there was a failure to administer the caution as required under section 37B(1)(b) DDA 1952 — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in rejecting the evidence of defence witnesses 1 case
Section 302 of the Penal Code — Whether the learned Judicial Commissioner was correct in fact and law in finding that it was the Appellant who inflicted the injuries to the deceased’s head and face and thereby caused the death of the deceased — Whether the absence of bloodstains or DNA evidence on the Appellant’s clothing and footwear created a reasonable doubt — Whether the Appellant’s voluntary intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intention or knowledge. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the Appellant was in possession of the impugned drugs and had knowingly trafficked in the said drugs — Whether there was a failure to conduct proper investigations and to call material witnesses — Whether the learned Judge erred in not considering the alleged common intention between Samuk, PW5, and Elyana in relation to the trafficking offence. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping — Whether the flagrant incompetence of the trial counsel resulted in a breach of the Appellant fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial — Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding the Appellant in mens rea and presumed possession under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding simultaneous actual and presumed trafficking under sections 2 and 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. 1 case
s.471 of the Penal Code and punishable under s.465 of the same Code — a finding of a prima facie case was made at the end of prosecution case and defence called — issues raised — duplicity of charges — contravention of s.163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) — whether mere irregularity curable under s.422 of the CPC — whether testimony of PW4 tantamount to adducing evidence of bad character of appellant so as to show / insinuate the propensity of appellant to commit forgery thus inadmissible under s.54 of the Evidence Act, 1950 1 case
Section 26J of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2009 (“ATIPSOM”) — smuggling of migrants — Conveyance of smuggled migrants — Whether the six (6) Indonesians are “smuggled migrants” — Section 2 of the ATIPSOM — Whether the Appellant was misled by the charge preferred against him — Whether the charge against the Appellant was defective by the fact that the word “involved” was stated in the charge instead of the word “engages” as per section 26J of ATIPSOM. 1 case
Key Statutes
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 7 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 7 cases
cited in 5 cases
Dangerous Drugs Act 1953
cited in 5 cases Poisons Act 1952
cited in 5 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 5 cases Federal Constitution
cited in 1 case Criminal
Procedure Code
cited in 1 case Criminal Procedure
Code
cited in 1 case Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
cited in 1 case Dangerous Drugs Act
1952
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
b-05sh-619-12-2023
NIZAMMUL HAYAT BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN v Pendakwa Raya
17 August 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-555-11-2023
SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
24 June 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-556-11-2023
SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
24 June 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-557-11-2023
SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
24 June 2025
MYCOA
s-05m-583-12-2022
Donny @ Mohd Nazmie Bin Musanna v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
17 June 2025
MYCOA
s-05sh-290-08-2023
Saripuddin Bin Sappe v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
16 June 2025
MYCOA
b-05sh-287-08-2023
Li Zhanlin v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
28 May 2025
MYCOA
ba-42k-7-10-2024
TAN SENG HUAT v Pendakwa Raya
19 May 2025
MYHC
n-05m-108-03-2023
Salim Sabeer v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
MYCOA
n-05m-109-03-2023
Abdul Kalam Sajeev v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
MYCOA
n-05m-110-03-2023
Radhakrishnan Syam v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
MYCOA
n-05m-111-03-2023
Sainulabdeen Siyad v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
MYCOA
n-05m-112-03-2023
Fazil Farook v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
MYCOA
q-05sh-61-02-2023
HO BENG HOCK v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
23 February 2025
MYCOA