Criminal Law
1220 cases · July 2016 to July 2026
Overview
Criminal Law appears in 1220 reported Malaysia judgments (2016–2026).
In this practice area
Criminal Law gathers the substantive offences and the reasoning by which the Malaysian courts decide guilt, as distinct from the procedural mechanics collected under Criminal Procedure. The judgments address the ingredients of offences under the Penal Code (Kanun Keseksaan) and specialised statutes, the assessment of witness credibility, the drawing of inferences from circumstantial evidence, and the sentence that follows conviction.
Drug trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952) is a dominant subject, together with the murder and culpable-homicide provisions of the Penal Code and, increasingly, corruption offences. On the last, the collection includes the statutory presumption under section 50(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 — that once receipt of money is established, it is presumed to have been received corruptly unless the contrary is proved. The area also captures the courts' treatment of the trial judge's advantage in assessing a witness, whose credibility is a matter peculiarly for the judge who saw and heard the testimony with the benefit of audio-visual evidence, so that appellate interference is confined to clear error. That deference shapes many of the appeals, since an appellant must show that the trial court's assessment was one no reasonable tribunal could have reached.
Sentencing and its constitutional limits run through the collection. Judgments consider the death penalty and its review — semakan hukuman mati (review of a death sentence) — including the effect of a pardon by the Pardons Board, and the re-sentencing consequences of the Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023. Cases involving child offenders raise detention "during the pleasure" of the Ruler under the Child Act 2001, and the courts explain how such a sentence is fixed and reviewed.
The cases sit mainly in the High Court and the Court of Appeal exercising criminal jurisdiction, with the Federal Court resolving questions of law of public importance. As a set they show how the courts read the elements of serious offences, weigh the evidence against an accused, and calibrate punishment within the bounds the Constitution and the sentencing statutes allow.
Case Volume by Year
2 16
1 17
4 18
4 19
6 20
4 21
25 22
17 23
168 24
697 25
292 26
2016–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Appeal against conviction and sentence — Sexual offences against children — Sexual communication, physical sexual assault, and rape by using position of authority — Whether trial judge erred in finding prima facie case — Whether conviction safe — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, ss 11(1)(a), 14(a), (c), (d) — Penal Code, s 376(2)(f) 5 Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether possession proven — Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs — Police raid on a homestay — All three accused found on the first floor — In two separate rooms — No drugs found in the rooms on the first floor — Drugs found in a room on the ground floor — Whether ground floor room was locked during the raid — Contradiction between the testimony of the Raiding Officer and the homestay manager on whether it was locked — No entrance keys to the homestay and the ground floor room found on the accused persons — Whether the accused persons had access to the ground floor room — Whether a third party had instead locked the ground floor room and accused persons inside the homestay — Whether a third party had access to the ground floor room — Accused persons looking surprise and worried during the raid — Whether this reaction consistent with someone who had hid the entrance keys to the homestay and the ground floor room — Whether the purported navigation of the accused persons to the ground floor room admissible — Under section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 — Whether the purported admission by the accused persons that they are keeping “barang salah” admissible — Whether caution administered pursuant to section 37B DDA 1952 — Identification of the 1st accused by the homestay manager via photograph — Whether identification parade ought to have been held based on the facts herein — Weight to be attached to such identification by photograph — No DNA of the accused persons found on the drug case exhibits and the non-drug case exhibits — Whether the fact that no response from the accused persons when the police called them from outside the homestay — And them looking scared and worried sufficient to infer knowledge — Whether DNA of the 3rd accused found on the water bottle on the ground floor room sufficient to infer knowledge — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 4 Sexual offences against children — Physical sexual assault — Conviction and sentence — Appeal — Whether prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt — Credibility of child witness — Inconsistencies — Misdirection by trial judge — Concurrent findings of fact --- Safe conviction — Appellate interference — Sentencing principles — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — s. 14(a) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 3 Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Whether HCJ had misdirected himself as to what constituted common intention of the Second Appellant — Penal Code, section 34 2 Appeal against sentence — Appellant charged under ss 376(2)(b), 377C, 377CA and 392/397 of Penal Code — Sentence for Armed Robbery — Whether whipping is mandatory — Sexual Offences — Whether sentence for armed robbery and sexual offences should run concurrently or consecutively — Seriousness of the offence 2 Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking — Possession — Accused charged with trafficking in methamphetamine and heroin and with possession of heroin and monoacetylmorphines — Drugs found partly on accused’s person and partly in dwelling house — Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of drugs — Constructive possession — Accused leading police to premises and location of drugs — Admissibility of information leading to discovery — Evidence Act 1950 s 27 — Relevance of conduct of accused — Evidence Act 1950 s 8 — Whether exclusive possession required — Joint possession — Presumption of trafficking — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 s 37(da) — Whether presumption rebutted on balance of probabilities — Defence of lack of knowledge and access by third parties — Chain of custody — Whether break in chain of evidence — Failure to adduce DNA evidence — Whether fatal to prosecution’s case — Whether prosecution established prima facie case at close of prosecution case — Criminal Procedure Code s 180. 2 Both Accused were separately charged with the smuggling of migrants under section 26A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons And Anti-Smuggling of Migrants(ATIPSOM) Act 2007 — Prosecution had established a prima facie case against both the Accused — The learned High Court Judge(HCJ) had ordered both the Accused to enter their defence — Both the Accused were found guilty and sentence to a term of imprisonment of 8 years — Both the Accused appealed against the decision of the learned HCJ — There is no merit in all the grounds of appeal raised by both the Accused — The conviction and sentenced imposed by the learned HCJ are hereby affirmed. 2 Outraging modesty — Section 354 of the Penal Code — Traditional healing treatment — Accused touched complainant's private parts during Islamic spiritual healing — Whether accused had criminal intention to outrage modesty — Whether touching done with consent — Whether accused's actions justified as treatment — Whether defence raised reasonable doubt — Whether acquittal at end of defence case should be affirmed 1 Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 -Whether accused had custody and control of the drugs — Whether accused had knowledge of the drugs — Accused driving motorcar alone at night — During the implementation of the Movement Control Order — Was asked to stop by the police — Police conducted inspection on the motorcar — Accused alone in the motorcar with no one else present — Drugs found inside two shopping bags on the back passenger seat — The two bags were visible and in proximity with the accused seated in the driver’s seat — Direct evidence of possession — Whether based on surrounding facts knowledge can be inferred — Accused’s defence — The motorcar belongs to a third party — Accused intended to buy the motorcar but the sale was not concluded — Seller came to the accused house to negotiate the sale — During that moment accused brother contacted him — Informing the accused that their parents cannot be contacted — Accused took the motorcar in the pretext of going for a test drive — To check on his parents staying alone at the neighboring town — Hence the accused has no knowledge of the bags at the back passenger seat and the drugs inside the bags — Inconsistencies on how the accused was detained at the place of incident — Between the evidence of the Raiding Officer compared with the evidence of another raiding team member — Sole piece of evidence that the accused bought the motorcar from the seller is from the Investigating Officer– No other supportive evidence — The seller of the motorcar not called by the Prosecution — Although statement recorded from him by the Investigating officer — Absence of DNA and fingerprint of the accused inside the motorcar and on the drug case exhibits — Whether there is a break in the chain of evidence — Based on the chemist inability to identify whether one of packets had a small incision made by the Raiding Officer — Conduct of the accused not running away and cooperating with the police consistent with his innocence — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 Rape — Section 376 (3) Penal Code — Conviction set aside — No reasoned judgment — Different trial judges — Interest of justice — Retrial. 1 Dangerous Drugs — Possession — Methamphetamine — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Whether prima facie case established at close of prosecution's case — Whether conviction safe — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — Sections 12(2), 37(d) and 39A(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 173(m)(i) Criminal Procedure Code 1 Outrage of modesty — Section 354 of the Penal Code — Elements of the offence — Whether criminal force applied with intent to outrage modesty Definition of 'outraging modesty' — Meaning of term not defined in Penal Code — Culpable intention of accused is crux of the matter — Test is whether a reasonable man would think that the act was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the victim — Test based on intention and knowledge of accused, not reaction of victim — Culpable intention of accused is crux of the matter — Essence of woman's modesty is her sex — State of Punjab v Major Singh AIR [1967] SC 63 and Zulkifli Hashim v PP [2017] 1 LNS 1768 applied 1 Road traffic offences — Dangerous driving causing death — Appeal against conviction — Appellant originally charged under Section 41(1) of Road Transport Act 1987 (reckless driving) — Charge amended mid-trial to Section 41(1) (dangerous manner of driving) — Appellant convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, fine of RM20,000, and disqualification from holding driving licence for five years — Whether amendment to charge prejudiced Appellant's defence — Whether prosecution proved dangerous manner of driving beyond reasonable doubt — Whether evidence established that Appellant crossed into opposite lane — Eyewitness police report omitted material detail — Forensic evidence inconclusive as to point of impact — Appellant admitted in police report that he dozed off and lost control ("saya terlelap dan hilang kawalan") — Whether microsleep constituted dangerous driving or careless driving — Whether failure to secure infant in child restraint system amounted to intervening cause — High Court setting aside conviction under Section 41(1) and substituting conviction under Section 43(1) (careless driving) — Fine of RM8,000 imposed. 1 Application to strike out charges — Applicant charged under Section 36(b) of the Birth and Death Registration Act 1957 and Rule 25(1)(b) National Registration Regulations 1990 — Inherent power to stay proceedings — Abuse of process — Absence of serious prejudice to the defense — Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution 1 Section 376(1) Penal Code — Rape of a minor — Pleaded guilty to two separate offences 1 Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 -Whether both accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs — They were seen seated inside a motorcar rented by PW8 whilst the engine still running — The police blocked their motorcar from behind — Both accused opened the car doors and ran — Thinking they were robbers — Drugs found on the back passenger seat — Inside a milk powder box — Both accused in close proximity with the drugs inside the motorcar — Direct evidence of possession — Whether knowledge of the drugs can be inferred from conduct of both accused running away — Whether other persons had access to the motorcar — Based on DNA of unknown individuals — Based on things found inside the motorcar by forensic investigation and seen in the photographs — Whether failure to produce fingerprint evidence weaken the prosecution case — Whether PW4 and PW8 are accomplice — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 Possession of dangerous weapon — Samurai sword — Section 7(1) Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Dangerous Weapons Act 1958 — Sentence — Imprisonment prescribed — Whipping not authorised — Defective charge sheet — Misstatement of law — Revisionary jurisdiction — High Court powers under ss 31, 35 & 325 CPC — Duty of court to scrutinise charge — Unrepresented accused — Error of law — Miscarriage of justice prevented 1 Appeal against acquittal — Prima facie case — Possession of psychotropic substance — Whether prosecution proved custody or control — Failure to establish exclusive control — Accomplice present with equal access to item — No fingerprint analysis conducted — Conflicting evidence on location of drug — Whether learned Magistrate erred in evaluating contradictions — Material inconsistencies between prosecution witnesses — Benefit of doubt given to accused 1 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 39B(1)(a) — Trafficking in dangerous drugs — Methamphetamine — Net weight 243.52 grams — Presumption of trafficking — Section 37(da) — Meaning of “found in possession” — Requirement of express affirmative finding of possession — Knowledge, custody and control — Distinction between “deemed” possession and “found” possession — Whether presumption upon presumption permissible 1 Possession — Meaning — Knowledge and control — Conduct evidencing dominion — Accused directing police to concealed drugs — Whether DNA or fingerprint evidence necessary — Sufficiency of circumstantial and direct evidence 1
+ 56 more
Sexual offences against children — Physical sexual assault — Conviction and sentence — Appeal — Whether prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt — Credibility of child witness — Inconsistencies — Misdirection by trial judge — Concurrent findings of fact --- Safe conviction — Appellate interference — Sentencing principles — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — s. 14(a) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 3 cases
Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Whether HCJ had misdirected himself as to what constituted common intention of the Second Appellant — Penal Code, section 34 2 cases
Appeal against sentence — Appellant charged under ss 376(2)(b), 377C, 377CA and 392/397 of Penal Code — Sentence for Armed Robbery — Whether whipping is mandatory — Sexual Offences — Whether sentence for armed robbery and sexual offences should run concurrently or consecutively — Seriousness of the offence 2 cases
Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking — Possession — Accused charged with trafficking in methamphetamine and heroin and with possession of heroin and monoacetylmorphines — Drugs found partly on accused’s person and partly in dwelling house — Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of drugs — Constructive possession — Accused leading police to premises and location of drugs — Admissibility of information leading to discovery — Evidence Act 1950 s 27 — Relevance of conduct of accused — Evidence Act 1950 s 8 — Whether exclusive possession required — Joint possession — Presumption of trafficking — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 s 37(da) — Whether presumption rebutted on balance of probabilities — Defence of lack of knowledge and access by third parties — Chain of custody — Whether break in chain of evidence — Failure to adduce DNA evidence — Whether fatal to prosecution’s case — Whether prosecution established prima facie case at close of prosecution case — Criminal Procedure Code s 180. 2 cases
Both Accused were separately charged with the smuggling of migrants under section 26A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons And Anti-Smuggling of Migrants(ATIPSOM) Act 2007 — Prosecution had established a prima facie case against both the Accused — The learned High Court Judge(HCJ) had ordered both the Accused to enter their defence — Both the Accused were found guilty and sentence to a term of imprisonment of 8 years — Both the Accused appealed against the decision of the learned HCJ — There is no merit in all the grounds of appeal raised by both the Accused — The conviction and sentenced imposed by the learned HCJ are hereby affirmed. 2 cases
Outraging modesty — Section 354 of the Penal Code — Traditional healing treatment — Accused touched complainant's private parts during Islamic spiritual healing — Whether accused had criminal intention to outrage modesty — Whether touching done with consent — Whether accused's actions justified as treatment — Whether defence raised reasonable doubt — Whether acquittal at end of defence case should be affirmed 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 -Whether accused had custody and control of the drugs — Whether accused had knowledge of the drugs — Accused driving motorcar alone at night — During the implementation of the Movement Control Order — Was asked to stop by the police — Police conducted inspection on the motorcar — Accused alone in the motorcar with no one else present — Drugs found inside two shopping bags on the back passenger seat — The two bags were visible and in proximity with the accused seated in the driver’s seat — Direct evidence of possession — Whether based on surrounding facts knowledge can be inferred — Accused’s defence — The motorcar belongs to a third party — Accused intended to buy the motorcar but the sale was not concluded — Seller came to the accused house to negotiate the sale — During that moment accused brother contacted him — Informing the accused that their parents cannot be contacted — Accused took the motorcar in the pretext of going for a test drive — To check on his parents staying alone at the neighboring town — Hence the accused has no knowledge of the bags at the back passenger seat and the drugs inside the bags — Inconsistencies on how the accused was detained at the place of incident — Between the evidence of the Raiding Officer compared with the evidence of another raiding team member — Sole piece of evidence that the accused bought the motorcar from the seller is from the Investigating Officer– No other supportive evidence — The seller of the motorcar not called by the Prosecution — Although statement recorded from him by the Investigating officer — Absence of DNA and fingerprint of the accused inside the motorcar and on the drug case exhibits — Whether there is a break in the chain of evidence — Based on the chemist inability to identify whether one of packets had a small incision made by the Raiding Officer — Conduct of the accused not running away and cooperating with the police consistent with his innocence — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 case
Rape — Section 376 (3) Penal Code — Conviction set aside — No reasoned judgment — Different trial judges — Interest of justice — Retrial. 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Possession — Methamphetamine — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Whether prima facie case established at close of prosecution's case — Whether conviction safe — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — Sections 12(2), 37(d) and 39A(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 173(m)(i) Criminal Procedure Code 1 case
Outrage of modesty — Section 354 of the Penal Code — Elements of the offence — Whether criminal force applied with intent to outrage modesty Definition of 'outraging modesty' — Meaning of term not defined in Penal Code — Culpable intention of accused is crux of the matter — Test is whether a reasonable man would think that the act was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the victim — Test based on intention and knowledge of accused, not reaction of victim — Culpable intention of accused is crux of the matter — Essence of woman's modesty is her sex — State of Punjab v Major Singh AIR [1967] SC 63 and Zulkifli Hashim v PP [2017] 1 LNS 1768 applied 1 case
Road traffic offences — Dangerous driving causing death — Appeal against conviction — Appellant originally charged under Section 41(1) of Road Transport Act 1987 (reckless driving) — Charge amended mid-trial to Section 41(1) (dangerous manner of driving) — Appellant convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, fine of RM20,000, and disqualification from holding driving licence for five years — Whether amendment to charge prejudiced Appellant's defence — Whether prosecution proved dangerous manner of driving beyond reasonable doubt — Whether evidence established that Appellant crossed into opposite lane — Eyewitness police report omitted material detail — Forensic evidence inconclusive as to point of impact — Appellant admitted in police report that he dozed off and lost control ("saya terlelap dan hilang kawalan") — Whether microsleep constituted dangerous driving or careless driving — Whether failure to secure infant in child restraint system amounted to intervening cause — High Court setting aside conviction under Section 41(1) and substituting conviction under Section 43(1) (careless driving) — Fine of RM8,000 imposed. 1 case
Application to strike out charges — Applicant charged under Section 36(b) of the Birth and Death Registration Act 1957 and Rule 25(1)(b) National Registration Regulations 1990 — Inherent power to stay proceedings — Abuse of process — Absence of serious prejudice to the defense — Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution 1 case
Section 376(1) Penal Code — Rape of a minor — Pleaded guilty to two separate offences 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 -Whether both accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs — They were seen seated inside a motorcar rented by PW8 whilst the engine still running — The police blocked their motorcar from behind — Both accused opened the car doors and ran — Thinking they were robbers — Drugs found on the back passenger seat — Inside a milk powder box — Both accused in close proximity with the drugs inside the motorcar — Direct evidence of possession — Whether knowledge of the drugs can be inferred from conduct of both accused running away — Whether other persons had access to the motorcar — Based on DNA of unknown individuals — Based on things found inside the motorcar by forensic investigation and seen in the photographs — Whether failure to produce fingerprint evidence weaken the prosecution case — Whether PW4 and PW8 are accomplice — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 case
Appeal against acquittal — Prima facie case — Possession of psychotropic substance — Whether prosecution proved custody or control — Failure to establish exclusive control — Accomplice present with equal access to item — No fingerprint analysis conducted — Conflicting evidence on location of drug — Whether learned Magistrate erred in evaluating contradictions — Material inconsistencies between prosecution witnesses — Benefit of doubt given to accused 1 case
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 39B(1)(a) — Trafficking in dangerous drugs — Methamphetamine — Net weight 243.52 grams — Presumption of trafficking — Section 37(da) — Meaning of “found in possession” — Requirement of express affirmative finding of possession — Knowledge, custody and control — Distinction between “deemed” possession and “found” possession — Whether presumption upon presumption permissible 1 case
Possession — Meaning — Knowledge and control — Conduct evidencing dominion — Accused directing police to concealed drugs — Whether DNA or fingerprint evidence necessary — Sufficiency of circumstantial and direct evidence 1 case
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Charge under section 39B(1) — Relevance of witness testimony on occupation of premises — Relationship between ancillary witness evidence and arresting officer’s testimony — Hostile witness ruling not determinative of ultimate evidential weight 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Possession of methamphetamine — Acquittal at conclusion of defence case — Appeal by prosecution — Whether trial magistrate erred in finding reasonable doubt — Burden of proof — Whether defence explanation must be believed — Effect of failure to investigate material facts 1 case
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 — Section 25(1) — Failure to report gratification — Whether prosecution must prove specific purpose pleaded in charge — Whether burden of proof shifts to accused — Section 50 MACC Act — Presumption of corrupt intent — Non applicability to section 25(1) 1 case
Appeal — Rape — Section 375(g) Penal Code — Requirement of penile penetration — Complainant unsure what penetrated — Whether prosecution proved penetration by male organ beyond reasonable doubt — Medical evidence showing only old hymenal tears —Uncertainty not clarified in reexamination — Whether trial judge misdirected himself — Whether conviction safe 1 case
Substitution of charge — Section 377CA Penal Code — Penetration by object not penis — Complainant unsure whether penetration was by penis or object — Whether facts proved reduce offence to minor offence — Whether substitution would prejudice accused — Whether essential element under s 377CA proved beyond reasonable doubt 1 case
Acquittal — Failure to establish actus reus of rape — Prosecution case unsafe— Conviction set aside — Acquittal and discharge ordered 1 case
Murder — Reduction of charge — Both accused are husband and wife — Charged with murder — Section 302 PC read together with section 34 PC — Victim a 4 year old girl — Mother of victim left the victim under the care of the 2nd accused — Intention to kill not proven — Court amended the charge to section 304(a) PC at the end of the Prosecution case — Based on the evidence presented during the prosecution stage — Injuries was inflicted on the victim by caning using a Rotan — Victim died due to tramline bruises causing severe hemorrhage into soft tissues — Leading to systemic function worsened — Absence of fatal injuries inflicted on the victim — Whether injuries inflicted on the victim sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death — Defence put forward by both accused at the Prosecution stage — Victim was caned — Due to her frequently passing motion and urination all over the place in the house — The 2nd accused brought the victim to the hospital upon finding her unconscious — The 1st accused notified the victim’s mother that victim was sent to the hospital — 1st accused also fetched the victim’s mother to the hospital — Based on the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be inferred that both accused had the intention to kill — Whether trial Court was justified in amending the charge — Whether the decision of the trial Court to amend the charge appealable — Whether falls within the definition of decision under section 3 CJA 1964 — Whether premature for the Prosecution to question the correctness or propriety of the decision at the prima facie stage — Whether in the interest of justice criminal trials must be concluded expeditiously without interruption of piecemeal appeal. 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Possession — Elements of possession under Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Drugs found in a closed bag in an open shed — Accused fled the scene — Plausible alternative explanation — Failure to prove physical element of custody and control — Charge under Section 39A(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code — Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Knowledge — Act of fleeing before discovery of drugs — Admissible to infer knowledge — Accused explained he fled for fear of being arrested for drug consumption — Explanation reasonable and supported by evidence — Insufficient to prove possession without evidence of exclusive control 1 case
Key Statutes
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
cited in 230 cases Evidence Act 1950
cited in 227 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 224 cases Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 111 cases Evidence Act
cited in 47 cases Federal Constitution
cited in 33 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 15 cases MACC Act 2009
cited in 14 cases Poisons Act 1952
cited in 12 cases Rules of Court 2012
cited in 11 cases Dangerous Drugs Act
cited in 11 cases
cited in 11 cases
Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023
cited in 9 cases Drugs Act
cited in 7 cases Criminal Justice Act 1953
cited in 6 cases Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Azmi bin Ariffin 136 Azman bin Abdullah 112 Noorin binti Badaruddin 96 Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan 65 Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim 62 Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali 57 Hazlina binti Hussain 52 Mohamad Abazafree bin Mohd Abbas 42 Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz 41 Collin Lawrence Sequerah 38 Norliza binti Othman 36 Mohd Radzi bin Abdul Hamid 36 Roszianayati binti Ahmad 35 Evawani Farisyta binti Mohammad 35 Azhar bin Abdul Hamid 34
Top Firms
Jabatan Peguam Negara 55 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kedah 52 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor 27 Attorney General's Chambers 21 Attorney General's Chamber 19 Salehuddin Saidin & Associates 18 Naran Singh & Co. 18 Pejabat Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan 17 Kamar Peguam Negara 16 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pahang 16 Salehuddin Saidin & Assoc 15 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang 14 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perlis 13 Pejabat Pendakwaan Negeri Selangor 11 Sivananthan 11
Top Lawyers
Noor Farhana binti Adham 17 Intan Nor Hilwani binti Mat Rifin 17 Tohirah binti Mohd Fauzi 16 Mohd. Fuad bin Abdul Aziz 15 Datuk N. Sivananthan 15 Kamaliza binti Md Zain 15 Goh Ai Rene 14 Nur Syafiqah binti Noorinda 14 Afifuddin bin Ahmad Hafifi 13 Low Wei Loke 12 How May Ling 12 Tetralina binti Ahmed Fauzi 12 Atiqah binti Abdul Karim @ Husaini 11 Mohd Firdaous bin Mohamed Idris 10 Aisyah Al Humayrah Binti Kamaruzaman 10
How many Criminal Law cases are reported in Malaysia courts?
1220 reported Malaysia judgments (2016–2026) involve Criminal Law.
How is Criminal Law different from Criminal Procedure in this corpus?
Criminal Law concerns the substance of offences — their ingredients, the evidence needed to prove them, and the sentence on conviction — while Criminal Procedure concerns how a case is conducted. The two overlap in practice, and many judgments appear under both, but the substantive reasoning about guilt and punishment is collected here.
What offences feature most in this area?
Trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952) and the homicide provisions of the Penal Code (Kanun Keseksaan) recur throughout, alongside corruption offences. For the last, the collection includes the presumption under section 50(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 that money proved to have been received was received corruptly unless the contrary is shown.
How do the courts approach the death penalty in these judgments?
The judgments describe the review of a death sentence — semakan hukuman mati (review of a death sentence) — including the effect of a pardon by the Pardons Board, and the re-sentencing that follows the Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023. Any sentence stated is the court's own verbatim order; the collection does not assert outcomes the judgments do not record.
Cases
Page 1 of 4905lb-102-06-2025w
Pendakwa Raya v SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN
12 July 2026
MYFC
05lb-103-06-2025w
Pendakwa Raya v SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN
12 July 2026
MYFC
05lb-104-06-2025w
Pendakwa Raya v SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN
12 July 2026
MYFC
ba-45a-68-07-2023
Pendakwa Raya v MISS TIPPAWAN CHIMPALEE
6 July 2026
MYHC
ta-41lb-10-09-2025
Pendakwa Raya v RULAM AKBAL BIN ABD MANAN
29 June 2026
MYHC
da-41lba-4-08-2025
Pendakwa Raya v MOHD SHAZNAS BIN MAT NASIR
27 June 2026
MYHC
ba-45b-9-03-2024
Pendakwa Raya v NORMAZILA BINTI HASSAN
25 June 2026
MYHC
j-05sh-582-12-2024
1. ) ABD AZIZ BIN YAHYA 2. ) Ramizah Binti Rahmat v Pendakwa Raya
25 June 2026
MYCOA
j-05sh-584-12-2024
1. ) ABD AZIZ BIN YAHYA 2. ) RAMIZAH BINTI RAHMAT v Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA]
25 June 2026
MYCOA
j-05sh-586-12-2024
1. ) Abd Aziz Bin Yahya 2. ) Ramizah Binti Rahmat (Pg Pada 23.12.2021) v Pendakwa Raya
25 June 2026
MYCOA
jb-45a-6-01-2022
Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMAD FAUZIE BIN MASRI
23 June 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-36-03-2022
Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) YUVANRAJ A/L ARUMUGAM 2. ) HARISHWARAN A/L KHISO KUMAR
18 June 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-80-04-2022
Pendakwa Raya v HARISHWARAN A/L KHISO KUMAR
18 June 2026
MYHC
ca-42ra-1-07-2025
Pendakwa Raya [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)] v RASIP BIN MAJID
15 June 2026
MYHC
jb-45a-26-11-2023
Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) KHAIRULNIZAM BIN HAIRUDDIN 2. ) NURUL HIDAYAH BINTI SHAARI
15 June 2026
MYHC
ca-41lb-8-12-2025
Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMAD NASRU KHALISH BIN KHALIL
14 June 2026
MYHC
da-45a-43-12-2021
Pendakwa Raya v MOHD RIZUAN BIN MOHD ZALIL
14 June 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-77-04-2022
Pendakwa Raya v THOMPSON WONG
14 June 2026
MYHC
ba-42s-19-09-2025
Hamizal Bin Osman v Pendakwa Raya
11 June 2026
MYHC
pb-44-18-11-2025
MUHAMAD SYAMERRUL IMAN BIN AZIZAN v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR 3. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
10 June 2026
MYHC
ja-22ncvc-133-10-2023
TERAS POWER ENGINEERING SDN BHD v 1. ) IBRAHIM & SONS ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) ZAMRI BIN IBRAHIM 3. ) ZULKFLEE BIN IBRAHIM 4. ) ZAFRIN BIN IBRAHIM PIHAK KETIGA Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia
8 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-1-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-2-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-3-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-4-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC