Criminal Procedure
38 cases · November 2017 to January 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 17
1 18
4 19
1 20
1 22
27 25
3 26
2017–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
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 Sentencing — Dangerous Drugs — Whether sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed rather than death penalty — Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act, 2023, 554. 4 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 Notice of motion — Application to quash charge — S.128 Customs Act 1967 -Seizure of goods — Seizure notice — Failure to initiate prosecution — Property forfeiture proceeding — Art 145(3) Federal Constitutions — Power to prosecute — Written notice to claim goods 1 Appeal — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — S.39A(2) — Appellant arrested after behaving suspiciously during routine crime prevention rounds — Alleged he fell and lost consciousness after motorcycle collided with police — Whether drugs found in Appellant's left socks and on carrier of the motorcycle — Whether break in chain of evidence — Short videos of arrest incident tendered by defence witness — Whether videos supported defence version — Sessions Court found defence did not raise any reasonable doubt — Conviction and sentence affirmed — Appeal dismissed 1 Appeal against conviction and sentence 1 Section 316(b)(ii) CPC read together with section 167 CPC — Whether the conviction of the appellant ought to be substituted for the conviction under s 43(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 1 Sentencing — Whether a custodial sentence is appropriate, considering it is not a premeditated offence. 1 Appeal — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Appellant charged under s. 14(a) of Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017. 1 Revision — Criminal revision — DNAA — Discharge and Acquittal — Duplicity Charge — Mala Fide Charge — s. 254A Criminal Procedure Code 1 Appeal against sentence — Offences of statutory rape under Penal Code and Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 — Whether sentences were manifestly excessive — Sessions Court imposed consecutive sentences to run from date of conviction — Appeal for sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently from date of arrest — One transaction rule — Appeal allowed in part for the imprisonment sentences to run concurrently 1 Close of prosecution case — s. 180 Criminal Procedure Code — No prima facie case — Discharge without defence 1 Revision — Revisionary power of High Court — Bail — Fresh evidence during revision 1 Appeal against conviction and sentence — Accused charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — punishable under s 39B (2) of the Act — The charge was reduced to s 39A(2) of the Act — The Accused was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and 10 strokes of rotan — Whether defence sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — the circumstances of the case support a charge of possession rather than trafficking 1 Defence — Accused does not know about the drugs -The drugs belong to two of the accused’s friends — The friends came to the house regularly to hang out — The motorcar and motorbike parked at the porch belong to his friends — The friends have access to the accused’s house — The friends removed the motorcar and the motorbike after the accused was arrested — The accused daughter have seen these friends in the accused’s house — Going into the accused’s bedroom — And saw them driving the motorcar and riding the motorbike — Whether the daughter’s evidence corroborates the accused’s version — Whether the daughter is an interested witness — The accused unable to contact these friends after his arrest — Whether the accused defence is a bare assertion and afterthought — Belated disclosure of the names of his friends by the accused — Whether the accused has rebutted the presumption of possession on the balance of probabilities — Whether the accused has cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case for trafficking the drugs. 1 Appeal — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Accused 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 -The Accused was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and 12 strokes of rotan — Whether defence cast reasonable doubt against prosecution case — Whether defence sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — Agent provocateur — Admissibility of evidence — Whether agent provocateur's evidence should be accepted 1 Defence — A case of mistaken identity — It was not the accused who was standing in front of the hut holding the bag containing drugs — The accused a crew member of a ship on which he arrived from Indonesia — Accused was on board the ship at the material time — Accused resting on the ship at the time during the raid — The other crew members had disembarked the ship — Leaving the accused and one Anto to look after the ship — Suddenly the accused heard a loud noise crying for help — Accused saw Anto running towards the ship chased by the police — Accused was arrested on board the ship and not in front of the hut — Thereafter accused was brought to the hut by the police and shown the bag containing drugs — Accused failed to call the captain of the ship to corroborate the existence of Anto — Whether the accused version that he saw Anto running towards the ship chased by the police probable — Whether the accused version he was arrested on board the ship probable — Whether there was a case of mistaken identity — Whether the accused’s version cast a reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case — Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted on the balance of probabilities. 1 Appeal — The Respondent was acquitted and discharged by the Session Court Judge — the prosecution appealed — the Respondent was charged for an offence under section 12(1)(f) of the Passport Act 1966 — whether the Session Court Judge had properly directed herself to the law and facts — whether the fact that the Respondent was in possession of someone's passport satisfies the first ingredient of the charge — whether the passport holder's authority is crucial to determine the first ingredient of the offence — whether failure to call the passport's holder is detrimental to the prosecution's case for failure to prove the first ingredient of the offence — whether the test of "possession" under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is applicable to the Passport Act 1 Defence — Whether the accused version is probable — Accused borrowed the motorcar from a friend — Motorcar was handed over to the accused by friend’s wife — Accused claims the shoe does not belong to him — The shoe does not fit the accused — Accused seated in front in the driver’s seat- Could not have seen and known the presence of drugs inside the shoe — Located underneath the front passenger seat on the footrest of the back passenger seat — Whether the accused’s version cast reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case — Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted on the balance of probabilities. 1
+ 14 more
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
Sentencing — Dangerous Drugs — Whether sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed rather than death penalty — Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act, 2023, 554. 4 cases
jb-45a-20-12-2021 PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LAI JIN CHUAN
23 September 2025
jb-45a-28-12-2021 PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH TARMIZI BIN MAHMUR
13 August 2025
jb-45a-14-10-2021 PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH BOO CHERK SIANG
10 July 2025
jb-45a-18-12-2021 PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH TAN KIAN CHEW
19 June 2025
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
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
Notice of motion — Application to quash charge — S.128 Customs Act 1967 -Seizure of goods — Seizure notice — Failure to initiate prosecution — Property forfeiture proceeding — Art 145(3) Federal Constitutions — Power to prosecute — Written notice to claim goods 1 case
Appeal — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — S.39A(2) — Appellant arrested after behaving suspiciously during routine crime prevention rounds — Alleged he fell and lost consciousness after motorcycle collided with police — Whether drugs found in Appellant's left socks and on carrier of the motorcycle — Whether break in chain of evidence — Short videos of arrest incident tendered by defence witness — Whether videos supported defence version — Sessions Court found defence did not raise any reasonable doubt — Conviction and sentence affirmed — Appeal dismissed 1 case
Appeal against conviction and sentence 1 case
Section 316(b)(ii) CPC read together with section 167 CPC — Whether the conviction of the appellant ought to be substituted for the conviction under s 43(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 1 case
Sentencing — Whether a custodial sentence is appropriate, considering it is not a premeditated offence. 1 case
Appeal — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Appellant charged under s. 14(a) of Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017. 1 case
Revision — Criminal revision — DNAA — Discharge and Acquittal — Duplicity Charge — Mala Fide Charge — s. 254A Criminal Procedure Code 1 case
Appeal against sentence — Offences of statutory rape under Penal Code and Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 — Whether sentences were manifestly excessive — Sessions Court imposed consecutive sentences to run from date of conviction — Appeal for sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently from date of arrest — One transaction rule — Appeal allowed in part for the imprisonment sentences to run concurrently 1 case
Close of prosecution case — s. 180 Criminal Procedure Code — No prima facie case — Discharge without defence 1 case
Revision — Revisionary power of High Court — Bail — Fresh evidence during revision 1 case
Appeal against conviction and sentence — Accused charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — punishable under s 39B (2) of the Act — The charge was reduced to s 39A(2) of the Act — The Accused was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and 10 strokes of rotan — Whether defence sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — the circumstances of the case support a charge of possession rather than trafficking 1 case
Defence — Accused does not know about the drugs -The drugs belong to two of the accused’s friends — The friends came to the house regularly to hang out — The motorcar and motorbike parked at the porch belong to his friends — The friends have access to the accused’s house — The friends removed the motorcar and the motorbike after the accused was arrested — The accused daughter have seen these friends in the accused’s house — Going into the accused’s bedroom — And saw them driving the motorcar and riding the motorbike — Whether the daughter’s evidence corroborates the accused’s version — Whether the daughter is an interested witness — The accused unable to contact these friends after his arrest — Whether the accused defence is a bare assertion and afterthought — Belated disclosure of the names of his friends by the accused — Whether the accused has rebutted the presumption of possession on the balance of probabilities — Whether the accused has cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case for trafficking the drugs. 1 case
Appeal — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Accused 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 -The Accused was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and 12 strokes of rotan — Whether defence cast reasonable doubt against prosecution case — Whether defence sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — Agent provocateur — Admissibility of evidence — Whether agent provocateur's evidence should be accepted 1 case
Defence — A case of mistaken identity — It was not the accused who was standing in front of the hut holding the bag containing drugs — The accused a crew member of a ship on which he arrived from Indonesia — Accused was on board the ship at the material time — Accused resting on the ship at the time during the raid — The other crew members had disembarked the ship — Leaving the accused and one Anto to look after the ship — Suddenly the accused heard a loud noise crying for help — Accused saw Anto running towards the ship chased by the police — Accused was arrested on board the ship and not in front of the hut — Thereafter accused was brought to the hut by the police and shown the bag containing drugs — Accused failed to call the captain of the ship to corroborate the existence of Anto — Whether the accused version that he saw Anto running towards the ship chased by the police probable — Whether the accused version he was arrested on board the ship probable — Whether there was a case of mistaken identity — Whether the accused’s version cast a reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case — Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted on the balance of probabilities. 1 case
Defence — Whether the accused version is probable — Accused borrowed the motorcar from a friend — Motorcar was handed over to the accused by friend’s wife — Accused claims the shoe does not belong to him — The shoe does not fit the accused — Accused seated in front in the driver’s seat- Could not have seen and known the presence of drugs inside the shoe — Located underneath the front passenger seat on the footrest of the back passenger seat — 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
Defence — Whether the accused version is probable — Accused provides transportation to a Malay friend dealing in traditional medicines — Accused claims the drugs belongs to the Malay friend and has no knowledge of the drugs — The Malay friend was arrested and investigated — But no charges preferred against him — The Malay friend offered to the accused as a witness — Failure by prosecution to secure attendance of the Malay friend — Bounden duty of the prosecution to avail witnesses offered to the defence — Whether this legal principle to be applied in a vacuum and blanketly — Whether an adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114 (g) Evidence Act 1950 — 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
Appeal against sentence only — Limited scope of appellate review — Whether trial judge erred in principle or exercised discretion improperly — Whether sentence disproportionate — Appellate court satisfied sentence consistent with sentencing trends — Sentence not excessive — Appeal dismissed. 1 case
Appeal against conviction and sentence — Offence of cultivating cannabis under s.6B of DDA 1952 — Appellant caught in the backyard of his house after surveillance by the police — Police seized 3 cannabis plants — Whether admission by Appellant to his mother is admissible — Whether prosecution has excluded access to the premises — Whether Appellant has custody or control and knowledge — Whether there was prima face case — Whether presumption under s.6B(4) applied — Evidential burden on the Appellant whether on raising a reasonable doubt or on a balance of probabilities — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Appeal against sentence dismissed 1 case
Penal Code s.457 — Appeal against sentence — Appellant pleaded guilty — Whether previous conviction record of Appellant should be considered in handing down sentence — Appeal dismissed 1 case
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Charged with trafficking — Accused pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of possession — Motorcycle seized in the commission of the offence — Ordered to be forfeited to the Government of Malaysia — Principles of sentencing — Spent conviction — Forfeiture of property 1 case
S.26A ATIPSOM 2007 — Smuggling of Migrants — s.34 Penal Code — S.3 ATIPSOM 2007 — Movement of 10 migrants from Tok Bali, Kelantan to Pantai Remis, Perak during MCO — Permit to cross state border given — No supporting letter from employer — Whether passports still valid — One other accused could not be located — DNAA — Whether Accused had knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe that the migrants were illegal migrants — Whether common intention has been proved — Defence called — Accused raised a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case — Acquitted and discharged 1 case
Appeal — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Appellant convicted for drug trafficking and sentenced to death 1 case
Criminal Procedure Code, s417 — Transfer of case to High Court — appellant is a member of Perak’s State Exco — appellant was charged with rape — appellant applied to transfer his case to High Court for trial — application was rejected by Judicial Commissioner — whether the transfer if allowed would prejudice the respondent — whether the case should be transferred for the interest of justice — absence of precedent to allow application upon such concession — power of Public Prosecutor to effect such transfer — whether Court should allow application by Public Prosecutor 1 case
Appeal — Trafficking of dangerous drugs — High Court accepted Appellant’s defence of innocent carrier — Appellant was acquitted by High Court — Court of Appeal reversed the decision of High Court — Whether Court of Appeal erred in reversing the findings and judgment of High Court — Whether Court of Appeal misread the reasoning in Duis Akim — Section 182A Criminal Procedure Code — Whether Court of Appeal failed to consider evidence of expert opinion — Whether Court of Appeal erred in making appellate intervention — Whether the trial judge was correct in finding the presumption of knowledge has been rebutted by the Appellant — Whether defence of innocent carrier proven — Section 37(d) and Section 39B(1)(a) and (2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 1 case
Criminal — Conviction on a lesser charge — the High Court convicted and sentenced the accused with death penalty — the Court of Appeal affirmed the sentenced and conviction — the Federal Court found the murder charge not proven and convicted the accused on culpable homicide not amounting to murder — the accused was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment pursuant to section 304(a) of the Penal Code — Accused applied to set aside the sentenced — Rules 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court — Whether the Federal Court has erred in sentencing the accused under section 304(a) instead of section 304(b) of the Penal Code — Whether the Federal Court had the power to re-evaluate the facts before deciding whether a conviction is safe — section 86 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1 case
Key Statutes
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 5 cases Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
cited in 3 cases Evidence Act
cited in 2 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 2 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 2 cases Courts
Ordinance
cited in 1 case Federal Constitution
cited in 1 case Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
cited in 1 case Customs Act 1967 (Cap 235)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
Page 1 of 2ja-44-39-10-2025
PHILLVIN GUACHIN v Pendakwa Raya
29 January 2026
MYHC
wa-42s-2-05-2024
ABDUL JALIL BIN JAMALUDIN v Pendakwa Raya
22 January 2026
MYHC
jb-41s-2-01-2025
HOW PEI LIN v Pendakwa Raya
6 January 2026
MYHC
jb-42jsks-5-10-2024
TEO YI HONG v Pendakwa Raya
16 December 2025
MYHC
ja-43a-1-11-2025
MOHD NOOR AAZLY BIN YAHYA v Pendakwa Raya
27 November 2025
MYHC
wa-42jskh-9-10-2024
YUSMIKUSHAIRI BIN YUSUF v Pendakwa Raya
17 November 2025
MYHC
jb-42jskh-2-01-2025
MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya
3 November 2025
MYHC
jb-42jskh-3-01-2025
MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya
3 November 2025
MYHC
jb-42jskh-4-01-2025
MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya
3 November 2025
MYHC
jb-42jskh-5-01-2025
MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya
3 November 2025
MYHC
jb-42jskh-6-01-2025
MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya
3 November 2025
MYHC
ca-46d-1-04-2018
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Muhammad Shafiq Bin Sa'ari
29 October 2025
MYHC
ja-43-37-10-2025
LEANG WIN SON v Pendakwa Raya
14 October 2025
MYHC
b-05sh-368-07-2024
SATYAMOORTHY A/L SUNDRAMOORTHY v Pendakwa Raya
8 October 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-312-07-2022
MOHD FIRDAUS BIN ISMAIL v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
24 September 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-313-07-2022
AIZUDDIN BIN AZIZAN v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
24 September 2025
MYCOA
jb-45a-20-12-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LAI JIN CHUAN
23 September 2025
MYHC
n-05sh-602-12-2023
SELVAKUMARA A/L PARAMASIVAM v Pendakwa Raya
24 August 2025
MYCOA
jb-45a-28-12-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH TARMIZI BIN MAHMUR
13 August 2025
MYHC
ba-42lb-7-11-2024
Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMMAD ANWAR HOSSAIN KHA
31 July 2025
MYHC
jb-45a-14-10-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH BOO CHERK SIANG
10 July 2025
MYHC
jb-45a-18-12-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH TAN KIAN CHEW
19 June 2025
MYHC
ab-41ha-3-12-2023
Pendakwa Raya [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] v Mohd Aman Bin Mustapa
4 June 2025
MYHC
ab-41sa-6-12-2023
Mohd Aman Bin Mustapa v Pendakwa Raya [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]
4 June 2025
MYHC
w-05h-566-12-2024
AL AMIN v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]
10 April 2025
MYCOA