Criminal Law
43 cases · February 2018 to February 2026
Case Volume by Year
2 18
2 20
1 21
34 25
4 26
2018–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
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 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 Dangerous Drugs —Drugs found in rented premises — Whether accused in exclusive possession, custody and control — Premises rented in name of third party — Failure to investigate named tenant — Presence of vehicles suggesting access by others — Keys not exclusively with accused — Access to premises by landlord — Whether prosecution failed to exclude access by third parties 1 Drug offences; multiple charges; dangerous drugs and poisons; methamphetamine; MDMA; ketamine; cannabis; codeine; sentencing for possession under DDA 1952 and Poisons Act 1952; alternative charge under s 12(2) DDA offered following representation; plea of guilty; voluntariness; use of interpreters; explanation of consequences of guilty plea; valid framing of charges under CPC Ch XVIII; — Prevalence of drug menace; need for deterrent sentences; public safety; balancing rehabilitation and deterrence; judicial discretion within statutory limits SENTENCING — Principles; deterrence; public interest; totality principle; concurrency; one transaction rule; first time offenders; cooperation with police; absence of violence; crushing effect; proportionality; sentencing trends considered; weight and type of drugs relevant; caning mandatory for male accused under s 39A(2) DDA; exemption for female accused under s 289(a) CPC — Mitigation: guilty plea as mitigation; background circumstances; socio economic factors; hardship to families; female foreign accused; factors relevant to leniency; cooperation; remorse; policy reasons for discount upon guilty plea. 1 Appeal — Affray — Penal Code ss.159, 160 — Essential elements — Whether bilateral fight established — Whether fight occurred in public place — Whether public peace disturbed — Contradictions between contemporaneous police report and oral testimony — Unproduced alleged weapon (“tongkat”) — Weight of corroborative independent witness — Video evidence — Admissibility and probative value 1 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — s 15(1)(a) — Self-administration of methamphetamine — Statutory presumption under s 37(k) — Burden of proof — Balance of probabilities — Chain of custody — Exhibit identification — Variance between charge and judgment — Afterthought defence — Misstatement of standard — Miscarriage of justice — s 316(b)(ii), s 422 Criminal Procedure Code. 1 Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether possession proven — Whether accused had custody and control of the drugs — Whether accused had knowledge of the drugs — Drugs found in the motorcar boot — Inside the spare tyre compartment — Motorcar driven by the accused — Accused had borrowed the motorcar from a friend — Motorcar purchased by the friend’s brother in law — For the friend’s use to deliver dialysis machine — In the course of employment with the brother in law’s company — Whether accused had prior custody and control of the motorcar — Before the accused was arrested — Motorcar and the keys were kept by friend at his apartment — Friend was the last person who drove the motorcar — Before handing it to the accused — Whether friend had absolute custody and control of the motorcar — Whether Prosecution successfully excluded possibility of other individuals having access to the motorcar — Immediately prior to the accused’s arrest — Whether mere evidence of the accused driving the motorcar — Momentarily with drugs inside the spare tyre compartment — Sufficient to prove accused had custody and control of the drugs — Accused attempted to use friend’s travel document — To deceive the police to pass through the road block during the Movement Control Order — Whether the accused looking surprise, scared and worried — Sufficient to infer the accused having knowledge of the drugs — Whether presumption of trafficking can be invoked — Whether upon a maximum evaluation of the evidence — The Prosecution has produced credible evidence to establish a prima facie case. 1 Corruption — Public servant — Acceptance of gratification — Two charges — s. 17(a) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 — Presumption under s. 50 — Elements of offence Criminal procedure — Absence of grounds of judgment — Whether appeal or criminal revision — Powers of High Court — ss. 310, 316, 323, 325 Criminal Procedure Code — Appeal heard substantively Evidence — Duty of prosecution — Failure to call material witness — Whether fatal to prosecution’s case — No adverse inference under s. 114(g) Evidence Act — Acquittal warranted where essential elements not proved Appeal — Conviction — First charge unsafe — Acquittal — Second charge proved beyond reasonable doubt — Acceptance of marked money — Trap operation — Presumption unrebutted Appellate review — Findings of fact — Trial court misdirection on first charge — No error on second charge — Appellate restraint Outcome — Appeal by accused allowed in part — Conviction on first charge set aside and accused acquitted — Appeal on second charge dismissed — Conviction and sentence on second charge affirmed. 1 Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 — s. 3A — Accomplice liability — Knowledge and participation — Failure of proof 1 Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 — s. 3A — Accomplice liability — Knowledge and participation — Failure of proof Criminal procedure — Close of prosecution case — s. 180 Criminal Procedure Code — No prima facie case — Discharge without defence Evidence — Identification parade — Compliance with police standing orders — Parade regular but identification inconsistent — No corroboration Evidence — Firearm handling — Break in evidential chain — Prosecution failed to prove how weapon passed from accused to principal offender Judicial duty — Court not entitled to speculate — Gaps in prosecution evidence fatal at prosecution stage Outcome — Accused discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence 1 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession and trafficking — ss. 12(2), 12(3), 39A(1), 39A(2), 39B — Plea bargaining — Reduction of capital charge — Accused pleaded guilty to substituted charge Criminal procedure — Guilty plea — s. 178 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether plea voluntary, informed and unequivocal — Court satisfied statutory safeguards complied with Sentencing — Principles — Proportionality — Deterrence — Public interest — Weight and type of drugs — Guilty plea as mitigating factor — Limits in drug offences Sentencing — Caning — Statutory exemption — Accused above 50 years — s. 289 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether imprisonment may be enhanced in lieu of caning — Comparative reference to Singapore jurisprudence — Discretion of court Sentencing — Enhancement of custodial sentence — Loss of deterrent and retributive effect of caning — Seriousness of offence — No compelling mitigating circumstances — Imprisonment of 11 years appropriate and not manifestly excessive Outcome — Conviction recorded on guilty plea — Sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment (from date of arrest). 1 Sentence — Armed robbery and gang robbery — Penal Code ss 392, 395, 397 read with s 34 — Multiple offences committed on different dates and against different victims — Whether offences constituted one transaction — One transaction rule — Whether consecutive sentences justified — Totality principle — Whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive — Whether appellate intervention warranted 1 Sexual offences against children — Physical sexual assault — s. 14(a) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (Act 792) — Victim aged 11 years — Touching of breast — Actus reus and mens rea proved Evidence — Child witness — Competency — Unsworn evidence — s. 18 Act 792 — Whether corroboration required — Evidence found unusually convincing — Conviction safe Criminal procedure — Close of prosecution case — Prima facie case — Accused called to enter defence — Proper exercise of judicial discretion Appeal — Findings of fact — Trial judge’s evaluation of credibility — Defence version rejected — No misdirection — Appellate restraint Sentence — Imprisonment and caning — Accused above 50 years — Caning permitted under s. 25 Act 792 — Rehabilitation counselling (s. 26) — Police supervision (s. 27) — Sentencing principles — Proportionality — Public interest Appeal against sentence — Prosecution and defence appeals — Sentence neither manifestly excessive nor manifestly inadequate Outcome — Appeal by Public Prosecutor dismissed — Appeal by accused dismissed — Conviction and sentence affirmed. 1 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 — Deemed possession — Deemed knowledge — Presumption under section 37 (d) DDA 1952 — Accused seen coming from the direction of his bedroom — Drugs discovered on the mattress in the accused’s bedroom — Drugs also discovered in the storeroom — At the bottom of the water boiler placed upside down — Whether evidence of the raiding officer credible — Similar type of drugs and packaging — Weight of drugs found in both rooms are close — Drugs were not hidden or concealed — The drugs can be easily seen by the accused — Accused and his wife are the only tenant and occupier of the house — Evidence from the accused’s wife — On the occupancy of the rooms in the house — Accused alone in the house at the time of the raid — Whether accused was trafficking the drugs — Section 2 DDA 1952 — Whether accused’s conduct in keeping or storing the drugs amounts to trafficking. 1 Penal Code — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — s. 304(a) — Original charge under s. 302 reduced upon representation — Substituted charge — Accused pleaded guilty Criminal procedure — Guilty plea — s. 178 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether plea voluntary, informed and unequivocal — Statutory requirements satisfied — Conviction properly recorded 1 Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession — Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs — Direct evidence — Accused seen standing alone carrying a bag — In front of a hut at night — Accused tried to escape when confronted by the police — Accused did no cooperate with the police — Police found the bag held by the accused to contain drugs — Accused caught red-handed by the police — Whether statements by the accused in the course of police investigation admissible — Section 112, 113 CPC and Section 37B DDA 1952. Accused had custody and control of the drugs — Accused had knowledge of the drugs — Accused had mens rea possession — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 The Appellant was charged with trafficking 102.31grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — at the end of the case for the defence, the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities and to raise a reasonable doubt to the prosecutions case and was convicted of the said offence and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping. 1 Both the Appellants were charged with trafficking 1,368.8 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code — at the end of the case for the defence, the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities and to raise a reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case and were convicted of the said offence and sentenced to life imprisonment, which is 30 years imprisonment, and also ordered to undergo 15 strokes of the whip. 1
+ 17 more
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
Dangerous Drugs —Drugs found in rented premises — Whether accused in exclusive possession, custody and control — Premises rented in name of third party — Failure to investigate named tenant — Presence of vehicles suggesting access by others — Keys not exclusively with accused — Access to premises by landlord — Whether prosecution failed to exclude access by third parties 1 case
Drug offences; multiple charges; dangerous drugs and poisons; methamphetamine; MDMA; ketamine; cannabis; codeine; sentencing for possession under DDA 1952 and Poisons Act 1952; alternative charge under s 12(2) DDA offered following representation; plea of guilty; voluntariness; use of interpreters; explanation of consequences of guilty plea; valid framing of charges under CPC Ch XVIII; — Prevalence of drug menace; need for deterrent sentences; public safety; balancing rehabilitation and deterrence; judicial discretion within statutory limits SENTENCING — Principles; deterrence; public interest; totality principle; concurrency; one transaction rule; first time offenders; cooperation with police; absence of violence; crushing effect; proportionality; sentencing trends considered; weight and type of drugs relevant; caning mandatory for male accused under s 39A(2) DDA; exemption for female accused under s 289(a) CPC — Mitigation: guilty plea as mitigation; background circumstances; socio economic factors; hardship to families; female foreign accused; factors relevant to leniency; cooperation; remorse; policy reasons for discount upon guilty plea. 1 case
Appeal — Affray — Penal Code ss.159, 160 — Essential elements — Whether bilateral fight established — Whether fight occurred in public place — Whether public peace disturbed — Contradictions between contemporaneous police report and oral testimony — Unproduced alleged weapon (“tongkat”) — Weight of corroborative independent witness — Video evidence — Admissibility and probative value 1 case
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — s 15(1)(a) — Self-administration of methamphetamine — Statutory presumption under s 37(k) — Burden of proof — Balance of probabilities — Chain of custody — Exhibit identification — Variance between charge and judgment — Afterthought defence — Misstatement of standard — Miscarriage of justice — s 316(b)(ii), s 422 Criminal Procedure Code. 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether possession proven — Whether accused had custody and control of the drugs — Whether accused had knowledge of the drugs — Drugs found in the motorcar boot — Inside the spare tyre compartment — Motorcar driven by the accused — Accused had borrowed the motorcar from a friend — Motorcar purchased by the friend’s brother in law — For the friend’s use to deliver dialysis machine — In the course of employment with the brother in law’s company — Whether accused had prior custody and control of the motorcar — Before the accused was arrested — Motorcar and the keys were kept by friend at his apartment — Friend was the last person who drove the motorcar — Before handing it to the accused — Whether friend had absolute custody and control of the motorcar — Whether Prosecution successfully excluded possibility of other individuals having access to the motorcar — Immediately prior to the accused’s arrest — Whether mere evidence of the accused driving the motorcar — Momentarily with drugs inside the spare tyre compartment — Sufficient to prove accused had custody and control of the drugs — Accused attempted to use friend’s travel document — To deceive the police to pass through the road block during the Movement Control Order — Whether the accused looking surprise, scared and worried — Sufficient to infer the accused having knowledge of the drugs — Whether presumption of trafficking can be invoked — Whether upon a maximum evaluation of the evidence — The Prosecution has produced credible evidence to establish a prima facie case. 1 case
Corruption — Public servant — Acceptance of gratification — Two charges — s. 17(a) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 — Presumption under s. 50 — Elements of offence Criminal procedure — Absence of grounds of judgment — Whether appeal or criminal revision — Powers of High Court — ss. 310, 316, 323, 325 Criminal Procedure Code — Appeal heard substantively Evidence — Duty of prosecution — Failure to call material witness — Whether fatal to prosecution’s case — No adverse inference under s. 114(g) Evidence Act — Acquittal warranted where essential elements not proved Appeal — Conviction — First charge unsafe — Acquittal — Second charge proved beyond reasonable doubt — Acceptance of marked money — Trap operation — Presumption unrebutted Appellate review — Findings of fact — Trial court misdirection on first charge — No error on second charge — Appellate restraint Outcome — Appeal by accused allowed in part — Conviction on first charge set aside and accused acquitted — Appeal on second charge dismissed — Conviction and sentence on second charge affirmed. 1 case
Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 — s. 3A — Accomplice liability — Knowledge and participation — Failure of proof 1 case
Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 — s. 3A — Accomplice liability — Knowledge and participation — Failure of proof Criminal procedure — Close of prosecution case — s. 180 Criminal Procedure Code — No prima facie case — Discharge without defence Evidence — Identification parade — Compliance with police standing orders — Parade regular but identification inconsistent — No corroboration Evidence — Firearm handling — Break in evidential chain — Prosecution failed to prove how weapon passed from accused to principal offender Judicial duty — Court not entitled to speculate — Gaps in prosecution evidence fatal at prosecution stage Outcome — Accused discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence 1 case
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession and trafficking — ss. 12(2), 12(3), 39A(1), 39A(2), 39B — Plea bargaining — Reduction of capital charge — Accused pleaded guilty to substituted charge Criminal procedure — Guilty plea — s. 178 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether plea voluntary, informed and unequivocal — Court satisfied statutory safeguards complied with Sentencing — Principles — Proportionality — Deterrence — Public interest — Weight and type of drugs — Guilty plea as mitigating factor — Limits in drug offences Sentencing — Caning — Statutory exemption — Accused above 50 years — s. 289 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether imprisonment may be enhanced in lieu of caning — Comparative reference to Singapore jurisprudence — Discretion of court Sentencing — Enhancement of custodial sentence — Loss of deterrent and retributive effect of caning — Seriousness of offence — No compelling mitigating circumstances — Imprisonment of 11 years appropriate and not manifestly excessive Outcome — Conviction recorded on guilty plea — Sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment (from date of arrest). 1 case
Sentence — Armed robbery and gang robbery — Penal Code ss 392, 395, 397 read with s 34 — Multiple offences committed on different dates and against different victims — Whether offences constituted one transaction — One transaction rule — Whether consecutive sentences justified — Totality principle — Whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive — Whether appellate intervention warranted 1 case
Sexual offences against children — Physical sexual assault — s. 14(a) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (Act 792) — Victim aged 11 years — Touching of breast — Actus reus and mens rea proved Evidence — Child witness — Competency — Unsworn evidence — s. 18 Act 792 — Whether corroboration required — Evidence found unusually convincing — Conviction safe Criminal procedure — Close of prosecution case — Prima facie case — Accused called to enter defence — Proper exercise of judicial discretion Appeal — Findings of fact — Trial judge’s evaluation of credibility — Defence version rejected — No misdirection — Appellate restraint Sentence — Imprisonment and caning — Accused above 50 years — Caning permitted under s. 25 Act 792 — Rehabilitation counselling (s. 26) — Police supervision (s. 27) — Sentencing principles — Proportionality — Public interest Appeal against sentence — Prosecution and defence appeals — Sentence neither manifestly excessive nor manifestly inadequate Outcome — Appeal by Public Prosecutor dismissed — Appeal by accused dismissed — Conviction and sentence affirmed. 1 case
Penal Code — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — s. 304(a) — Original charge under s. 302 reduced upon representation — Substituted charge — Accused pleaded guilty Criminal procedure — Guilty plea — s. 178 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether plea voluntary, informed and unequivocal — Statutory requirements satisfied — Conviction properly recorded 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession — Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs — Direct evidence — Accused seen standing alone carrying a bag — In front of a hut at night — Accused tried to escape when confronted by the police — Accused did no cooperate with the police — Police found the bag held by the accused to contain drugs — Accused caught red-handed by the police — Whether statements by the accused in the course of police investigation admissible — Section 112, 113 CPC and Section 37B DDA 1952. Accused had custody and control of the drugs — Accused had knowledge of the drugs — Accused had mens rea possession — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 case
The Appellant was charged with trafficking 102.31grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — at the end of the case for the defence, the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities and to raise a reasonable doubt to the prosecutions case and was convicted of the said offence and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping. 1 case
Both the Appellants were charged with trafficking 1,368.8 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code — at the end of the case for the defence, the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities and to raise a reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case and were convicted of the said offence and sentenced to life imprisonment, which is 30 years imprisonment, and also ordered to undergo 15 strokes of the whip. 1 case
murder — the evidence of an accomplice can be accepted to convict an accused for murder if it is corroborated in material particulars. Criminal law — murder- where the accused had acted in a way which exhibits viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life, and his acts are so grievous an affront to humanity and so abhorrent, the death penalty would be the only adequate sentence 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 -Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs — Accused seen driving a motorcar — Entering the toll plaza — During implementation of the Movement Control Order — Was asked to stop by police for inspection — Did not have a valid permit to cross border — Accused alone in the motorcar — Drugs found inside the shoe on the footrest of the back passenger seat — Accused seated in the driver’s seat — Accused in close proximity with the drugs — Direct evidence of possession — Conduct of the accused looking worried, afraid, concealing something and unable to answer question — Whether knowledge of the drugs can be inferred from conduct of the accused — Whether third party could have accessed the motorcar — Inconsistencies in the Raiding Officer’s evidence — Absence of DNA and fingerprint evidence of the accused — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which is punishable under Section 39B(2) of the same Act. — no full grounds of judgment in the Record of Appeal — HCJ’s written broad grounds of judgment at the end of the trial — At the conclusion of the trial, the Court found the Accused guilty as he had failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking and failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the Prosecution’s case. — his defence was not sustainable — pre-conditions for admission of evidence under S.27 EA — the Accused failed on his defence and the sentence is one that is within the purview of the law — Appeal is dismissed 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking charge — Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 -Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs — Accused seen driving a motorcar — Was asked to stop by police — Refused to stop and sped off leading to a 100km chase — Accused alone in the motorcar — Drugs found on the footrest of the front passenger seat — Accused seated on the driver’s seat — Accused in close proximity with the drugs — Direct evidence of possession — Whether knowledge of the drugs can be inferred from conduct of the accused — Refusing to stop the motorcar and speeding off — To avoid inspection by the police — Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 case
Dangerous drugs — Trafficking — Possession and knowledge — Accused alone in vehicle — Drugs in gear panel — Voluntary handover after statutory caution — Section 39B(1)(a), (2) and s 37(da)(xvi) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether elements proved beyond reasonable doubt — Whether statutory presumption rebutted. 1 case
Defence of frame-up — Alleged planting of drugs — Tip-off by informer — Whether plausible. 1 case
Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking — Possession — Chain of custody — Presumption — Appellate interference 1 case
Voluntarily causing hurt — section 323 read with section 326A Penal Code — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Credibility of complainant suffering from depressive disorder — Failure to produce documentary proof of marriage — One-sided and incomplete investigation — Whether conviction safe. 1 case
Key Statutes
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 3 cases Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 2 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 2 cases Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty
Act 2023
cited in 1 case Evidence
Act 1950
cited in 1 case Evidence Act
1950
cited in 1 case Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Cases
Page 1 of 2da-45-16-12-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH MR. CHACHAHWAN AHMAH
28 February 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-124-07-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) TEOH KOR SHENG 2. ) NGUYEN THI MY TAM
28 January 2026
MYHC
ja-41lb-5-09-2025
Pendakwa Raya v SEE CHOON YONG @ KHOH RI LING
5 January 2026
MYHC
ja-41sa-2-10-2024
AZRUL ASYRAFF BIN AZALAN v Pendakwa Raya
4 January 2026
MYHC
jb-45a-22-12-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH TAN JYH WEI
26 November 2025
MYHC
wa-42h-8-06-2024
Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMED NORHASIF BIN NORWIRADIJAYA
25 November 2025
MYHC
wa-42h-9-06-2024
Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMED NORHASIF BIN NORWIRADIJAYA
25 November 2025
MYHC
ja-45a-16-01-2023
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LOW HONG WENG
5 November 2025
MYHC
ja-45a-62-04-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LOW HONG WENG
5 November 2025
MYHC
ca-42ra-2-02-2024
MOHD RIDHUAN BIN KASAH v Pendakwa Raya
2 November 2025
MYHC
ca-46d-1-04-2018
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Muhammad Shafiq Bin Sa'ari
29 October 2025
MYHC
ca-46d-2-04-2018
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Muhamad Amin Bin Pauzi
29 October 2025
MYHC
ca-45a-1-01-2023
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) NOR AZMI BIN AHMAD 2. ) ROHANISAH BINTI YUSOF 3. ) NORMANISAH BINTI AHMAD
28 October 2025
MYHC
jb-45-13-12-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) WILSON ONG JIE RONG 2. ) LEI WEI CHEE 3. ) MARCUS YEO ZHEN WEI
27 October 2025
MYHC
jb-45-14-12-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) WILSON ONG JIE RONG 2. ) LEI WEI CHEE 3. ) MARCUS YEO ZHEN WEI
27 October 2025
MYHC
jb-45-15-12-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) WILSON ONG JIE RONG 2. ) LEE WEI CHEE 3. ) MARCUS YEO ZHEN WEI
27 October 2025
MYHC
jb-45a-26-12-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) WILSON ONG JIE RONG 2. ) LEE WEI CHEE 3. ) MARCUS YEO ZHEN WEI
27 October 2025
MYHC
aa-42h-13-06-2024
TENGKU IZWAN SHAH BIN TENGKU AZMAN v Pendakwa Raya
12 October 2025
MYHC
ca-42jskh-9-07-2024
Pendakwa Raya v MOHD ASNAN BIN MAT ARIS
9 October 2025
MYHC
jb-45a-20-12-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LAI JIN CHUAN
23 September 2025
MYHC
ca-45b-4-11-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Mohd Noor Bin Ab Manap
18 August 2025
MYHC
jb-45a-28-12-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH TARMIZI BIN MAHMUR
13 August 2025
MYHC
s-05sh-367-09-2023
Mohd Sah Bin Jainuddin v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
6 August 2025
MYCOA
s-05sh-211-06-2023
1. ) Mohd Ali Bin Bahar 2. ) Musliadi Bin Ali v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
5 August 2025
MYCOA
s-05sh-219-06-2023
Borhan Bin Tahir v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
3 August 2025
MYCOA