CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
5 cases · March 2022 to June 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 22
1 24
1 25
2 26
2022–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Section 39B(1)(a) — Trafficking in 8,805.90 grams of cannabis — Section 6 — Possession of 49.30 grams of cannabis — Close of prosecution case — Prima facie standard — Requirement for maximum evaluation of evidence — Whether credible evidence proved each ingredient of the charges. EVIDENCE: Statutory Presumptions — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Sections 37(d) and 37(da) — Prosecution seeking to invoke a presumption of trafficking based on a presumption of possession — Stacking of presumptions — Whether impermissible in law — Muhammad bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor applied. 1 Section 39B(1)(a) — Trafficking in 8,805.90 grams of cannabis — Section 6 — Possession of 49.30 grams of cannabis — Close of prosecution case — Prima facie standard — Requirement for maximum evaluation of evidence — Whether credible evidence proved each ingredient of the charges. 1 ss. 39B(1)(a), 12(2), 39A(1) — Trafficking and possession — Methamphetamine, Heroin, and Monoacetylmorphines — Elements of the offences — Common intention — Whether active participation or pre-arranged plan proven — Penal Code, s. 34. 1 Section 15(1)(a) — Offense of consuming dangerous drugs — Accused acquitted due to prosecution’s failure to produce urine sample bottle — Reliance on photographs lacking clear serial numbers — Whether chain of custody and evidence integrity compromised EVIDENCE: — Urine sample bottle not produced — Subject matter of the charge — SP5 admitted bottle destroyed without sufficient justification — Whether non-production fatal to prosecution’s case EVIDENCE: Witnesses — Failure to call material witness — Critical to chain of custody — Adverse inference under Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) — Whether absence of witness created reasonable doubt EVIDENCE: Photographic evidence — Photographs of urine sample bottle tendered — SP5 admitted photographs altered and device used differed from certification under s. 90A — Whether photographs reliable and valid substitutes for physical evidence 1 Section 39B(1)(a) — Trafficking in dangerous drugs — Admissibility of evidence of conduct of appellant — Whether appellant in possession of dangerous drugs — Presumptions of possession and trafficking — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37(d), (da), 37A — Evidence Act 1950, ss. 8 (2), Admissibility — Conduct — Whether evidence of appellant’s conduct in picking up bag containing dangerous drug and handing it over to the police officer amounted to a statement and is therefore admissible 1
Section 39B(1)(a) — Trafficking in 8,805.90 grams of cannabis — Section 6 — Possession of 49.30 grams of cannabis — Close of prosecution case — Prima facie standard — Requirement for maximum evaluation of evidence — Whether credible evidence proved each ingredient of the charges. EVIDENCE: Statutory Presumptions — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Sections 37(d) and 37(da) — Prosecution seeking to invoke a presumption of trafficking based on a presumption of possession — Stacking of presumptions — Whether impermissible in law — Muhammad bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor applied. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) — Trafficking in 8,805.90 grams of cannabis — Section 6 — Possession of 49.30 grams of cannabis — Close of prosecution case — Prima facie standard — Requirement for maximum evaluation of evidence — Whether credible evidence proved each ingredient of the charges. 1 case
ss. 39B(1)(a), 12(2), 39A(1) — Trafficking and possession — Methamphetamine, Heroin, and Monoacetylmorphines — Elements of the offences — Common intention — Whether active participation or pre-arranged plan proven — Penal Code, s. 34. 1 case
Section 15(1)(a) — Offense of consuming dangerous drugs — Accused acquitted due to prosecution’s failure to produce urine sample bottle — Reliance on photographs lacking clear serial numbers — Whether chain of custody and evidence integrity compromised EVIDENCE: — Urine sample bottle not produced — Subject matter of the charge — SP5 admitted bottle destroyed without sufficient justification — Whether non-production fatal to prosecution’s case EVIDENCE: Witnesses — Failure to call material witness — Critical to chain of custody — Adverse inference under Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) — Whether absence of witness created reasonable doubt EVIDENCE: Photographic evidence — Photographs of urine sample bottle tendered — SP5 admitted photographs altered and device used differed from certification under s. 90A — Whether photographs reliable and valid substitutes for physical evidence 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) — Trafficking in dangerous drugs — Admissibility of evidence of conduct of appellant — Whether appellant in possession of dangerous drugs — Presumptions of possession and trafficking — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37(d), (da), 37A — Evidence Act 1950, ss. 8 (2), Admissibility — Conduct — Whether evidence of appellant’s conduct in picking up bag containing dangerous drug and handing it over to the police officer amounted to a statement and is therefore admissible 1 case
Key Statutes
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 1 case Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Cases
ja-45a-36-03-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) YUVANRAJ A/L ARUMUGAM 2. ) HARISHWARAN A/L KHISO KUMAR
18 June 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-80-04-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH HARISHWARAN A/L KHISO KUMAR
18 June 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-20-09-2020
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) AZIZI BIN ZAINUDIN 2. ) ABDUL RASHID BIN ABDUL MANAN 3. ) NURSHAMIRAH BINTI ABDULLAH
16 December 2025
MYHC
aa-41lba-7-09-2023
Pendakwa Raya v MOHD AMIRUL AMRIE BIN MOHD ZIMI
18 November 2024
MYHC
05m-22-02-2020n
ARIFF ARHANNAN BIN CHE UDIN v PENDAKWA RAYA
10 March 2022
MYFC