Criminal Procedure

1596 cases · July 2016 to July 2026

Overview

Criminal Procedure appears in 1596 reported Malaysia judgments (2016–2026).

In this practice area

Criminal Procedure is one of the most active areas in the corpus, reflecting a body of case law dominated by prosecutions and by appeals against conviction and sentence. The judgments concern how a criminal case is conducted rather than the definition of the offence itself: the framing and amendment of charges, the sufficiency of the prosecution case at the close of its evidence, the calling of a defence, remand and detention, and the conduct of appeals through the hierarchy of courts.

Drug prosecutions recur throughout. A common thread is the appeal against conviction and sentence under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), often raising the absence of section 34 of the Penal Code from a charge, the effect of a defective charge, and the operation of statutory presumptions. Alongside these sit appeals by the prosecution — rayuan oleh Pendakwa Raya (an appeal by the Public Prosecutor) — against a magistrate's decision to discharge and acquit an accused at the close of the prosecution case, and applications concerning the form and content of a notice of appeal.

The collection also captures constitutional and sentencing questions that arise in procedure. Judgments examine the Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 and the re-sentencing exercise it requires, detention "at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong" under the Child Act 2001, and remand under the Armed Forces Act 1972. Where unlawful detention is alleged, the courts describe how the burden shifts to the detaining authority to show a valid legal power.

The cases are concentrated in the High Court exercising its appellate and revisionary jurisdiction, with a substantial group in the Court of Appeal and a smaller number in the Federal Court. Together they show how the Malaysian courts police the fairness and regularity of the criminal process from charge to final appeal.

Case Volume by Year

205

895

404

2016–2026

Key Issues & Sub-Topics

Sentencing — Dangerous Drugs — Whether sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed rather than death penalty — Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act, 2023, 554. 6 Charge — Defective charge — Section 11(a) instead of s 11(1)(a) — Typographical error — Whether curable under s 422 Criminal Procedure Code — Accused not misled — Charge not defective — Prima facie case — Maximum evaluation — Whether prosecution evidence sufficient to call for defence — Section 182A Criminal Procedure Code — Trial judge's finding affirmed 5 Sentence — Appeal against sentence — Charges under s 14(a) and (d) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 — whether sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed had crushing effect on accused — Whether sentence proportional to offence — Not manifestly excessive — Whether offences committed separate and distinct — Whether one transaction rule applicable — Whether sentences should be made to run concurrently 5 Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Failure of the HCJ to specify the precise limb of section 300 of the Penal Code at the close of the Prosecution's case — Whether HCJ had erred in deciding that the Prosecution had established a prima facie against the Appellants — Whether such omission had occasioned a miscarriage of justice 2 Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Whether HCJ had erred in the exercise of his discretion in imposing the death penalty on both Appellants — Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, section 34. 2 Appeal — Appeals against conviction and sentence — Both accused were charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs — an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — punishable under s 39B (2) of the Act — Both accused were sentenced to life’s imprisonment from the date of arrest and 15 strokes of rotan —Whether defense sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — Whether there was a break in chain of evidence — Whether discrepancies affected credibility of witness — Whether appellate interference warranted — Whether conviction and sentence safe — Criminal Procedure Code s 180(1). 2 Appeal against conviction and sentence — Offence under s.385 of the Penal Code — Putting fear in order to commit extortion — Fear of sex videos made by the complainants would be reported to the Pejabat Agama — Whether the Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and in fact when convicting the accused — Credibility of prosecution witnesses — Whether ingredients of the charge have been proved — No judicial misappreciation by Sessions Court Judge — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Accused was a policeman entrusted with security and safety of the public — Sentence of imprisonment increased from 3 years to 5 years 2 Defence — Whether the accused version of his defence is probable — Accused intended to buy the motorcar from a third party — But the sale could not be concluded due to the movement control order in place — Accused showed to the Investigating Officer where the third party is staying — Statement recorded by the Investigating Officer from the third party and the registered owner — Even before the accused statement was recorded — Whether the third party had possession of the motorcar before the incident — Whether the third party is the same person referred to by the Investigating Officer as the seller of the motorcar — The third party seller not called by the Prosecution — Neither offered to the accused at the end of the Prosecution’s case — Nor the statement of the seller of the motorcar furnished to the accused — Whether the accused version consistent with the prosecution’s case — Whether the accused’s defence is an afterthought — Whether failure by the Prosecution to offer the third party has effected the accused’s right to a fair trial — In these circumstances whether the accused can be convicted for an offence under Section 39B (1) (a) DDA 1952 — Whether based on the totality of the evidence, the accused ought to be convicted for a lesser offence under section 12(2) DDA 1952 punishable under section 39A(2) DDA 1952 — Charge amended pursuant to section 158 CPC — Read and explained to the accused. 1 Sentencing — Sentencing Trend — In cases where charge reduced from trafficking to possession — Between 15 to 20 years imprisonment — Mitigating factors — Aggravating factors — Public interest — Seriousness of the offence — Large quantity of drugs 1 Appeal — Conviction — Absence of grounds of judgment. 1 Trial — Prosecution’s case — Prima facie case — Standard of proof at the close of the prosecution's case — Duty of court to conduct a maximum evaluation of evidence — Whether to call for defence — Criminal Procedure Code, s 180(1) 1 Criminal revision — Remand order — Application to set aside — Whether remand order properly made — Mandatory duty of investigating officer to disclose prior detention — Non-disclosure of prior remand application and refusal thereof — Whether non-disclosure fatal to remand — Absence of nexus between arrested person and offence — Complainant's description of assailants as Malay men — Arrested person of Indian/Punjabi ethnicity — No connecting evidence on record — Whether requisite nexus established — Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) ss 117(1), 117(2)(b), 117(3), 117(5), 323(1) — Remand order set aside 1 Appeal — Findings of fact — Appellate intervention — Principles governing appellate court's interference with trial court's findings — Duty to intervene where trial court fundamentally misdirected itself 1 Appellate jurisdiction — Prosecution's appeal against acquittal — Role of appellate court — Whether to re-assess evidence as retrial — When Intervention warranted — where trial court misdirected itself in law, applied wrong test, or reached conclusion no reasonable court could have reached — Herchun Singh v PP [1969] 1 MLRA 382; Lee Kwan Woh v PP [2009] 5 MLJ 301 applied 1 Prima facie case — Section 173(f) Criminal Procedure Code — Prosecution's appeal against acquittal at close of prosecution case — Whether learned Magistrate correctly applied test for prima facie case — Maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence required Evidence — Sexual offences — Unusually convincing evidence — Where complainant's evidence uncorroborated, must be unusually convincing before court may convict — Meaning of 'unusually convincing' — Testimony that when weighed against overall backdrop of available facts and circumstances contains ring of truth leaving court satisfied no reasonable doubt exists in favour of accused — PP v Muhammad Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 5 SLR 601; PP v Mohammad Malek Ridhzuan Che Hassan [2014] 1 MLJ 363 applied 1 Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 — Charges under s.17(a) of the 2009 Act — Application for transfer of case from subordinate court to High Court — Applicant was former Senior Political Secretary to the Prime Minister — Whether the provisions of s.417 have been satisfied — Questions of unusual difficulty — Whether expedient for the ends of justice — Whether Sessions Court incompetent to hear the charges — No evidence of incompetence — No questions of unusual difficulty would potentially arise — Application dismissed 1 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Trafficking of dangerous drugs — 3 persons arrested in a house used to process drugs — 1st Accused died in prison before trial commenced — DPP withdrew charges against 1st Accused — No evidence that drugs were being processed at the time of arrest — Whether 2nd and 3rd Accused persons had custody, control over the premises and knowledge of the drugs found there — Court could not make an affirmative finding of actual possession and knowledge of the drugs based on evidence presented by the prosecution — No credible evidence to link the 2 remining accused persons to the house whereas the 1st Accused person was the tenant of the premises — Prosecution did not manage to prove a prima facie case against the 2nd and 3rd Accused persons — They were accordingly acquitted and discharged without calling for their defence 1 Defence — Whether both accused version are probable — The 1st accused was asked by PW8 to deliver the motorcar with milk powder in a box to PW4 at his house — Milk powder meant for PW4’ children — Upon arrival, PW4 did not remove the milk powder box from the motorcar — PW4 instead asked the 1st accused to drive him to Batu Pahat and later changed to Chaah, Segamat — The 2nd accused followed them — Along the way PW4 asked them to stop at a homestay in Yong Peng — The milk powder box was brought out of the motorcar by PW4 and later brought back — Placed on the back passenger seat — The 1st accused did not know the contents of the milk powder box — The 2nd accused merely a passenger in the motorcar — The 2nd accused version is PW4 asked to be fetched from Chaah, Segamat — The 2nd accused did not see the milk powder box on the back seat because it was dark — Contradiction in both accused versions concerning where was PW4 — Whether both accused defence an afterthought and mere denial — Whether the accused’s version cast reasonable doubt over the Prosecution’s case — Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted on the balance of probabilities. 1 Charge — Amendment of charge — Second amendment sought at close of prosecution's case — Whether amendment would cause prejudice to accused — Defence prepared case based on element of "control" — Prosecution sought to revert to "possession" — Amendment at late stage held to be prejudicial — Discretion of court to amend under s 158 of Criminal Procedure Code — Discretion must be exercised judicially — Duty to frame correct charge lies with prosecution 1 Criminal Procedure Code — Section 180 — Prima facie case — Test to be applied — Maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence — Whether evidence sufficient to convict if accused elects to remain silent — Duty of court at close of prosecution’s case 1 + 63 more

Sentencing — Dangerous Drugs — Whether sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed rather than death penalty — Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act, 2023, 554. 6 cases

jb-45a-2-02-2021 Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) MUHAMMAD NURSAFIQ IKMAL BIN MOHSIN 2. ) MOHAMAD EZUAN BIN ISMAIL

12 April 2026

jb-45a-20-12-2021 Pendakwa Raya v LAI JIN CHUAN

23 September 2025

jb-45a-28-12-2021 Pendakwa Raya v TARMIZI BIN MAHMUR

13 August 2025

jb-45a-14-10-2021 Pendakwa Raya v BOO CHERK SIANG

10 July 2025

jb-45a-18-12-2021 Pendakwa Raya v TAN KIAN CHEW

19 June 2025

+ 1 more cases

Charge — Defective charge — Section 11(a) instead of s 11(1)(a) — Typographical error — Whether curable under s 422 Criminal Procedure Code — Accused not misled — Charge not defective — Prima facie case — Maximum evaluation — Whether prosecution evidence sufficient to call for defence — Section 182A Criminal Procedure Code — Trial judge's finding affirmed 5 cases

ta-42jsksa-1-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya

7 June 2026

ta-42jsksa-2-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya

7 June 2026

ta-42jsksa-3-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya

7 June 2026

ta-42jsksa-4-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya

7 June 2026

ta-42jsksa-5-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya

7 June 2026

Sentence — Appeal against sentence — Charges under s 14(a) and (d) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 — whether sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed had crushing effect on accused — Whether sentence proportional to offence — Not manifestly excessive — Whether offences committed separate and distinct — Whether one transaction rule applicable — Whether sentences should be made to run concurrently 5 cases

jb-42jskh-2-01-2025 MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya

3 November 2025

jb-42jskh-3-01-2025 MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya

3 November 2025

jb-42jskh-4-01-2025 MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya

3 November 2025

jb-42jskh-5-01-2025 MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya

3 November 2025

jb-42jskh-6-01-2025 MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya

3 November 2025

Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Failure of the HCJ to specify the precise limb of section 300 of the Penal Code at the close of the Prosecution's case — Whether HCJ had erred in deciding that the Prosecution had established a prima facie against the Appellants — Whether such omission had occasioned a miscarriage of justice 2 cases

q-05m-304-08-2023 SEOW PEI CHIE v Pendakwa Raya

9 March 2026

q-05m-305-08-2023 CHEUNG CHIA MING v Pendakwa Raya

9 March 2026

Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Whether HCJ had erred in the exercise of his discretion in imposing the death penalty on both Appellants — Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, section 34. 2 cases

q-05m-304-08-2023 SEOW PEI CHIE v Pendakwa Raya

9 March 2026

q-05m-305-08-2023 CHEUNG CHIA MING v Pendakwa Raya

9 March 2026

Appeal — Appeals against conviction and sentence — Both accused were charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs — an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — punishable under s 39B (2) of the Act — Both accused were sentenced to life’s imprisonment from the date of arrest and 15 strokes of rotan —Whether defense sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — Whether there was a break in chain of evidence — Whether discrepancies affected credibility of witness — Whether appellate interference warranted — Whether conviction and sentence safe — Criminal Procedure Code s 180(1). 2 cases

w-05sh-312-07-2022 MOHD FIRDAUS BIN ISMAIL v Pendakwa Raya

24 September 2025

w-05sh-313-07-2022 AIZUDDIN BIN AZIZAN v Pendakwa Raya

24 September 2025

Appeal against conviction and sentence — Offence under s.385 of the Penal Code — Putting fear in order to commit extortion — Fear of sex videos made by the complainants would be reported to the Pejabat Agama — Whether the Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and in fact when convicting the accused — Credibility of prosecution witnesses — Whether ingredients of the charge have been proved — No judicial misappreciation by Sessions Court Judge — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Accused was a policeman entrusted with security and safety of the public — Sentence of imprisonment increased from 3 years to 5 years 2 cases

ab-41ha-3-12-2023 Pendakwa Raya [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] v Mohd Aman Bin Mustapa

4 June 2025

ab-41sa-6-12-2023 Mohd Aman Bin Mustapa v Pendakwa Raya [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

4 June 2025

Defence — Whether the accused version of his defence is probable — Accused intended to buy the motorcar from a third party — But the sale could not be concluded due to the movement control order in place — Accused showed to the Investigating Officer where the third party is staying — Statement recorded by the Investigating Officer from the third party and the registered owner — Even before the accused statement was recorded — Whether the third party had possession of the motorcar before the incident — Whether the third party is the same person referred to by the Investigating Officer as the seller of the motorcar — The third party seller not called by the Prosecution — Neither offered to the accused at the end of the Prosecution’s case — Nor the statement of the seller of the motorcar furnished to the accused — Whether the accused version consistent with the prosecution’s case — Whether the accused’s defence is an afterthought — Whether failure by the Prosecution to offer the third party has effected the accused’s right to a fair trial — In these circumstances whether the accused can be convicted for an offence under Section 39B (1) (a) DDA 1952 — Whether based on the totality of the evidence, the accused ought to be convicted for a lesser offence under section 12(2) DDA 1952 punishable under section 39A(2) DDA 1952 — Charge amended pursuant to section 158 CPC — Read and explained to the accused. 1 case

jb-45a-6-01-2022 Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMAD FAUZIE BIN MASRI

23 June 2026

Sentencing — Sentencing Trend — In cases where charge reduced from trafficking to possession — Between 15 to 20 years imprisonment — Mitigating factors — Aggravating factors — Public interest — Seriousness of the offence — Large quantity of drugs 1 case

jb-45a-6-01-2022 Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMAD FAUZIE BIN MASRI

23 June 2026

Appeal — Conviction — Absence of grounds of judgment. 1 case

jb-42jsks-2-08-2025 KHAIRULIZAM BIN MUSTAPA v Pendakwa Raya

3 June 2026

Trial — Prosecution’s case — Prima facie case — Standard of proof at the close of the prosecution's case — Duty of court to conduct a maximum evaluation of evidence — Whether to call for defence — Criminal Procedure Code, s 180(1) 1 case

ja-45a-140-11-2022 Pendakwa Raya v JAGAPRKHASAM A/L JAGANATHAN

2 June 2026

Criminal revision — Remand order — Application to set aside — Whether remand order properly made — Mandatory duty of investigating officer to disclose prior detention — Non-disclosure of prior remand application and refusal thereof — Whether non-disclosure fatal to remand — Absence of nexus between arrested person and offence — Complainant's description of assailants as Malay men — Arrested person of Indian/Punjabi ethnicity — No connecting evidence on record — Whether requisite nexus established — Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) ss 117(1), 117(2)(b), 117(3), 117(5), 323(1) — Remand order set aside 1 case

ja-43-10-05-2026 SWARAN SINGH A/L MOTA SINGH v Pendakwa Raya

11 May 2026

Appeal — Findings of fact — Appellate intervention — Principles governing appellate court's interference with trial court's findings — Duty to intervene where trial court fundamentally misdirected itself 1 case

ta-42s-7-12-2024 ONG SIM WEI v Pendakwa Raya

6 May 2026

Appellate jurisdiction — Prosecution's appeal against acquittal — Role of appellate court — Whether to re-assess evidence as retrial — When Intervention warranted — where trial court misdirected itself in law, applied wrong test, or reached conclusion no reasonable court could have reached — Herchun Singh v PP [1969] 1 MLRA 382; Lee Kwan Woh v PP [2009] 5 MLJ 301 applied 1 case

ja-41lb-4-08-2025 Pendakwa Raya v MOHD ISMAIL BIN ISHAK

4 May 2026

Prima facie case — Section 173(f) Criminal Procedure Code — Prosecution's appeal against acquittal at close of prosecution case — Whether learned Magistrate correctly applied test for prima facie case — Maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence required Evidence — Sexual offences — Unusually convincing evidence — Where complainant's evidence uncorroborated, must be unusually convincing before court may convict — Meaning of 'unusually convincing' — Testimony that when weighed against overall backdrop of available facts and circumstances contains ring of truth leaving court satisfied no reasonable doubt exists in favour of accused — PP v Muhammad Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 5 SLR 601; PP v Mohammad Malek Ridhzuan Che Hassan [2014] 1 MLJ 363 applied 1 case

ja-41lb-4-08-2025 Pendakwa Raya v MOHD ISMAIL BIN ISHAK

4 May 2026

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 — Charges under s.17(a) of the 2009 Act — Application for transfer of case from subordinate court to High Court — Applicant was former Senior Political Secretary to the Prime Minister — Whether the provisions of s.417 have been satisfied — Questions of unusual difficulty — Whether expedient for the ends of justice — Whether Sessions Court incompetent to hear the charges — No evidence of incompetence — No questions of unusual difficulty would potentially arise — Application dismissed 1 case

wa-44-15-02-2026 Shamsul Iskandar @ Yusre Bin Mohd Akin v Pendakwa Raya

27 April 2026

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Trafficking of dangerous drugs — 3 persons arrested in a house used to process drugs — 1st Accused died in prison before trial commenced — DPP withdrew charges against 1st Accused — No evidence that drugs were being processed at the time of arrest — Whether 2nd and 3rd Accused persons had custody, control over the premises and knowledge of the drugs found there — Court could not make an affirmative finding of actual possession and knowledge of the drugs based on evidence presented by the prosecution — No credible evidence to link the 2 remining accused persons to the house whereas the 1st Accused person was the tenant of the premises — Prosecution did not manage to prove a prima facie case against the 2nd and 3rd Accused persons — They were accordingly acquitted and discharged without calling for their defence 1 case

wa-45a-44-08-2023 Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) KRISNAN A/L ARUMUGAM 2. ) SURESH A/L NADARAJAH 3. ) NAGARAJAN A/L RAJOO

16 April 2026

Defence — Whether both accused version are probable — The 1st accused was asked by PW8 to deliver the motorcar with milk powder in a box to PW4 at his house — Milk powder meant for PW4’ children — Upon arrival, PW4 did not remove the milk powder box from the motorcar — PW4 instead asked the 1st accused to drive him to Batu Pahat and later changed to Chaah, Segamat — The 2nd accused followed them — Along the way PW4 asked them to stop at a homestay in Yong Peng — The milk powder box was brought out of the motorcar by PW4 and later brought back — Placed on the back passenger seat — The 1st accused did not know the contents of the milk powder box — The 2nd accused merely a passenger in the motorcar — The 2nd accused version is PW4 asked to be fetched from Chaah, Segamat — The 2nd accused did not see the milk powder box on the back seat because it was dark — Contradiction in both accused versions concerning where was PW4 — Whether both accused defence an afterthought and mere denial — Whether the accused’s version cast reasonable doubt over the Prosecution’s case — Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted on the balance of probabilities. 1 case

jb-45a-2-02-2021 Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) MUHAMMAD NURSAFIQ IKMAL BIN MOHSIN 2. ) MOHAMAD EZUAN BIN ISMAIL

12 April 2026

Charge — Amendment of charge — Second amendment sought at close of prosecution's case — Whether amendment would cause prejudice to accused — Defence prepared case based on element of "control" — Prosecution sought to revert to "possession" — Amendment at late stage held to be prejudicial — Discretion of court to amend under s 158 of Criminal Procedure Code — Discretion must be exercised judicially — Duty to frame correct charge lies with prosecution 1 case

ta-41lba-1-04-2025 Pendakwa Raya v MOHD FAIZOL BIN MAT AZMIN

7 April 2026

Criminal Procedure Code — Section 180 — Prima facie case — Test to be applied — Maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence — Whether evidence sufficient to convict if accused elects to remain silent — Duty of court at close of prosecution’s case 1 case

ja-45a-106-06-2022 Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) Mohd Khairul Azhar Bin Dollah 2. ) Khairul (Perempuan)

6 April 2026

Prosecution — Application under section 154 Evidence Act 1950 — Alleged inconsistency regarding factual detail — Bedrooms used by accused — Whether prior general statement irreconcilable with sworn testimony — Witness evidence capable of co existence — No hostility established 1 case

ja-45a-35-03-2023 Pendakwa Raya v RUBEN A/L SELVA KUMAR

6 April 2026

Appeal — Appeal against acquittal — Duty of appellate court — Findings of fact by trial court — Credibility of witnesses — Whether appellate court should interfere — Whether decision manifestly wrong 1 case

ta-41lb-9-12-2024 Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMMAD SABREE BIN ABD WAHAB

6 April 2026

Penal Code ss. 302 and 304(a) — Charge of murder — Whether the fouth ingredient of charge had been proved ie whether the act(s) of the accused was committed with intention to cause injuries to the deceased, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death — Court found based on police investigations that there was provocation by the deceased against the accused — Accused did not intend to kill the deceased — Prosecution did not prove a prima facie case of murder — Charge reduced to s.304(a) and read to accused for defence to be called — Accused pleaded guilty to reduced charge — Sentenced to 14 years imprisonment 1 case

wa-45b-3-03-2023 Pendakwa Raya v MOHAN A/L MURUGESU

6 April 2026

Criminal Procedure Code — Sections 173(m), 173(h)(iii), 182A — Duty of trial court to undertake maximum evaluation of all evidence — Whether misdirection in limiting evaluation to defence evidence — Appellate duty to ensure conviction is safe 1 case

ja-42ra-13-09-2025 ALIAS BIN JAAFAR v Pendakwa Raya

1 April 2026

Dangerous drugs — Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Elements of trafficking — Burden of proof — Whether prosecution established prima facie case 1 case

ja-45a-19-04-2021 Pendakwa Raya v Cheng Sim Chen (Zheng Xincheng)

1 April 2026

Possession of drugs — Physical and mental elements — Whether accused had custody and control — Principle in Chan Pean Leon v PP applied 1 case

ja-45a-19-04-2021 Pendakwa Raya v Cheng Sim Chen (Zheng Xincheng)

1 April 2026

Identity of accused — No identification parade conducted — Confusion over identity — Two individuals with same name — Whether charge sustainable 1 case

ja-45a-19-04-2021 Pendakwa Raya v Cheng Sim Chen (Zheng Xincheng)

1 April 2026

Packages inspected by staff — No drugs found at point of delivery — Whether evidence sufficient to link accused to seized drugs 1 case

ja-45a-19-04-2021 Pendakwa Raya v Cheng Sim Chen (Zheng Xincheng)

1 April 2026

Witness testimony — Material contradictions regarding date, location and number of packages — Whether contradictions raise reasonable doubt 1 case

ja-45a-19-04-2021 Pendakwa Raya v Cheng Sim Chen (Zheng Xincheng)

1 April 2026

Common intention — Section 34 Penal Code — No evidence of relationship or joint plan between accused — Whether common intention proven 1 case

ja-45a-19-04-2021 Pendakwa Raya v Cheng Sim Chen (Zheng Xincheng)

1 April 2026

Key Statutes

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

cited in 273 cases

Penal Code (Cap 574)

cited in 240 cases

Evidence Act 1950

cited in 232 cases

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)

cited in 111 cases

Federal Constitution

cited in 68 cases

Evidence Act

cited in 55 cases

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

cited in 48 cases

Rules of Court 2012

cited in 32 cases

MACC Act 2009

cited in 15 cases

Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (Cap 792)

cited in 15 cases

Poisons Act 1952

cited in 12 cases

Dangerous Drugs Act

cited in 12 cases

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

cited in 10 cases

Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 (Cap 846)

cited in 9 cases

Drugs Act

cited in 7 cases

Court Distribution

MYHC 1243 MYCOA 293 MYFC 60

Key People & Firms

How many Criminal Procedure cases are reported in Malaysia courts?

1596 reported Malaysia judgments (2016–2026) involve Criminal Procedure.

What does the Criminal Procedure area focus on?

It focuses on how a criminal case is run rather than on the elements of the offence: charging and amendment of charges, the prima-facie-case threshold at the close of the prosecution case, the calling of a defence, remand and detention, and the conduct of appeals. Prosecution appeals described as rayuan oleh Pendakwa Raya (an appeal by the Public Prosecutor) against a discharge and acquittal feature prominently.

Why do drug cases appear so often here?

Much of the Malaysian criminal caseload involves trafficking prosecutions under seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952). Appeals in these matters frequently raise the form of the charge, the absence of section 34 of the Penal Code, the effect of a defective charge, and the operation of statutory presumptions — all of which are procedural questions rather than questions of guilt in the abstract.

Does the area include sentencing and constitutional points?

Yes. The judgments examine re-sentencing under the Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, detention of a child offender "at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong" under the Child Act 2001, and remand under the Armed Forces Act 1972. Where unlawful detention is alleged, the courts explain that the burden shifts to the detaining authority to justify the detention under a valid legal power.