CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs
10 cases · July 2025 to May 2026
Case Volume by Year
4 25
6 26
2025–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Trafficking — Methamphetamine — 352.35g — Prima facie case — Presumption of possession and knowledge — Reliance on Section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Definition of 'trafficking' under Section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Act of delivering a sealed box to a courier service for shipment — Whether such act falls within the definition of trafficking — Defence of innocent carrier — Wilful blindness — Failure to make reasonable inquiries into the contents of the parcel despite suspicious circumstances — Whether the accused had discharged the evidential burden to disprove knowledge — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 2, 37(d) & 39B(1)(a). 1 Trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession of dangerous drugs — Distinction between fact of possession and knowledge of nature of thing possessed — Statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether presumption of trafficking could arise or operate absent proof of underlying possession — Whether prosecution proved possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt — Whether accused's purpose in attending scene was consistent with trafficking rather than personal use – 1 Possession, custody and control — Trafficking in cannabis — Whether prosecution established possession and knowledge of drugs found outside house compound and inside rented room — Whether open accessibility of compound and presence of multiple occupants raised reasonable doubt — Whether absence of key, personal belongings and forensic linkage weakened inference of control over room — Whether reliance on section 27 Evidence Act 1950 amounted merely to recovery rather than discovery — Whether recorded statement under section 32(1)(i) Evidence Act 1950 could cure investigative deficiencies — Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 arose 1 Trafficking and possession — Whether prosecution established prima facie case — Whether custody or control over premises proved — Whether knowledge of drugs can be inferred — Whether drugs found in common area accessible to others — Whether investigation failed to determine occupant of bedroom 3 — Whether jeans and towel ownership verified — Whether failure to exclude possibility of access by other persons — Whether presumption s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 can be invoked — Whether circumstantial evidence sufficient — Whether evidential gap material — Whether prosecution proved possession and knowledge beyond inference — Whether prosecution excluded the possible presence of others to the premises — Whether benefit of doubt arises 1 Trafficking — Cannabis — 985.60 grams — Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Undercover operation — Agent provocateur — Admissibility of evidence — Section 40A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Definition of trafficking — Section 2 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Negotiated sale and delivery — Whether offence of trafficking by way of sale complete upon delivery — Common intention — Section 34 Penal Code — Joint criminal liability. 1 Self-administration of dangerous drug — Charge under s. 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Urine specimen tested positive for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine — Whether prosecution established prima facie case at close of prosecution case 1 Self-administration of dangerous drugs — Charge under s. 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA 1952") — "Arrested person" requirement under s. 31A DDA 1952 — Whether accused must be an arrested person before urine sample may lawfully be required under s. 31A(1A) DDA 1952 — Whether arrest precedes or follows preliminary urine screening — Whether detention for enquiry or compliance with direction to provide urine sample constitutes arrest — Whether nodding in understanding when directed to provide urine sample amounts to constructive arrest — Whether question of arrest determined by particular facts and circumstances of each case — Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) DDA 1952 renders urine sample evidence inadmissible — Whether common law admission principles can overcome breach of statutory procedural requirement — Supremacy of Federal Constitution — Whether statutory procedure must be meticulously followed — Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) is mere technicality curable by common law — Whether statutory presumption under s. 37(k) DDA 1952 available where s. 31A not complied with — Articles 5 and 8 Federal Constitution — Equal protection of law irrespective of rank or status of accused 1 Possession — Actual and constructive possession — Elements of knowledge, custody, and control — Mental and physical elements (mens rea and actus reus) — Proximity to drugs — Whether mere presence in a room where drugs were found in a closed drawer constitutes possession — Wilful blindness — Whether a visitor can be held to have custody and control over drugs found in a host's premises. 1 Trafficking and possession — Charge under s 39B(1)(a) DDA read with s 34 Penal Code — Whether custody and control established — Whether knowledge inferred from surrounding circumstances — Accused found inside enclosed lorry compartment in close proximity to open boxes containing methamphetamine — Defence relying on third-party “Che Mat” and alleged investigative gaps — Whether third-party access created reasonable doubt — Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) applicable — Absence of repacking tools, distribution indicators or movement for sale — Trafficking not proven beyond reasonable doubt — Possession (custody, control and knowledge) established — Whether conviction for lesser offence permissible — Application of ss 158 and 169(2) Criminal Procedure Code — Whether particulars of charge supported lesser offence — Substitution to offence under s 12(2) punishable under s 39A(2) DDA SENTENCING — Exceptionally large quantity (426.79 kg) — No direct trafficking activity proved — Range of sentence under s 39A(2) — Consideration of gravity of offence, proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitative objective — Accused aged 33–46 with prospect of reintegration into society. 1 Trafficking — Possession and control of cannabis found in shared room during police raid — Accused handed over box upon police caution — Shared access to room and no forensic link — Whether exclusive possession established — Whether presumption under s. 37(d) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applicable — Whether prima facie case established — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ss. 39B(1)(a), 37(d), 37(da) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial — Close of prosecution case — Standard for prima facie case — Accused's silence — Whether Court would convict on prosecution evidence alone — Duty of prosecution to exclude third-party involvement — Failure to investigate material suspect — Failure to establish element of possession — Whether adverse inference to be drawn — Criminal Procedure Code ss. 180(1), (2), (4); Evidence Act 1950 s. 114(g) 1
Trafficking — Methamphetamine — 352.35g — Prima facie case — Presumption of possession and knowledge — Reliance on Section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Definition of 'trafficking' under Section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Act of delivering a sealed box to a courier service for shipment — Whether such act falls within the definition of trafficking — Defence of innocent carrier — Wilful blindness — Failure to make reasonable inquiries into the contents of the parcel despite suspicious circumstances — Whether the accused had discharged the evidential burden to disprove knowledge — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 2, 37(d) & 39B(1)(a). 1 case
Trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession of dangerous drugs — Distinction between fact of possession and knowledge of nature of thing possessed — Statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether presumption of trafficking could arise or operate absent proof of underlying possession — Whether prosecution proved possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt — Whether accused's purpose in attending scene was consistent with trafficking rather than personal use – 1 case
Possession, custody and control — Trafficking in cannabis — Whether prosecution established possession and knowledge of drugs found outside house compound and inside rented room — Whether open accessibility of compound and presence of multiple occupants raised reasonable doubt — Whether absence of key, personal belongings and forensic linkage weakened inference of control over room — Whether reliance on section 27 Evidence Act 1950 amounted merely to recovery rather than discovery — Whether recorded statement under section 32(1)(i) Evidence Act 1950 could cure investigative deficiencies — Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 arose 1 case
Trafficking and possession — Whether prosecution established prima facie case — Whether custody or control over premises proved — Whether knowledge of drugs can be inferred — Whether drugs found in common area accessible to others — Whether investigation failed to determine occupant of bedroom 3 — Whether jeans and towel ownership verified — Whether failure to exclude possibility of access by other persons — Whether presumption s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 can be invoked — Whether circumstantial evidence sufficient — Whether evidential gap material — Whether prosecution proved possession and knowledge beyond inference — Whether prosecution excluded the possible presence of others to the premises — Whether benefit of doubt arises 1 case
Trafficking — Cannabis — 985.60 grams — Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Undercover operation — Agent provocateur — Admissibility of evidence — Section 40A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Definition of trafficking — Section 2 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Negotiated sale and delivery — Whether offence of trafficking by way of sale complete upon delivery — Common intention — Section 34 Penal Code — Joint criminal liability. 1 case
Self-administration of dangerous drug — Charge under s. 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Urine specimen tested positive for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine — Whether prosecution established prima facie case at close of prosecution case 1 case
Self-administration of dangerous drugs — Charge under s. 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA 1952") — "Arrested person" requirement under s. 31A DDA 1952 — Whether accused must be an arrested person before urine sample may lawfully be required under s. 31A(1A) DDA 1952 — Whether arrest precedes or follows preliminary urine screening — Whether detention for enquiry or compliance with direction to provide urine sample constitutes arrest — Whether nodding in understanding when directed to provide urine sample amounts to constructive arrest — Whether question of arrest determined by particular facts and circumstances of each case — Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) DDA 1952 renders urine sample evidence inadmissible — Whether common law admission principles can overcome breach of statutory procedural requirement — Supremacy of Federal Constitution — Whether statutory procedure must be meticulously followed — Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) is mere technicality curable by common law — Whether statutory presumption under s. 37(k) DDA 1952 available where s. 31A not complied with — Articles 5 and 8 Federal Constitution — Equal protection of law irrespective of rank or status of accused 1 case
Possession — Actual and constructive possession — Elements of knowledge, custody, and control — Mental and physical elements (mens rea and actus reus) — Proximity to drugs — Whether mere presence in a room where drugs were found in a closed drawer constitutes possession — Wilful blindness — Whether a visitor can be held to have custody and control over drugs found in a host's premises. 1 case
Trafficking and possession — Charge under s 39B(1)(a) DDA read with s 34 Penal Code — Whether custody and control established — Whether knowledge inferred from surrounding circumstances — Accused found inside enclosed lorry compartment in close proximity to open boxes containing methamphetamine — Defence relying on third-party “Che Mat” and alleged investigative gaps — Whether third-party access created reasonable doubt — Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) applicable — Absence of repacking tools, distribution indicators or movement for sale — Trafficking not proven beyond reasonable doubt — Possession (custody, control and knowledge) established — Whether conviction for lesser offence permissible — Application of ss 158 and 169(2) Criminal Procedure Code — Whether particulars of charge supported lesser offence — Substitution to offence under s 12(2) punishable under s 39A(2) DDA SENTENCING — Exceptionally large quantity (426.79 kg) — No direct trafficking activity proved — Range of sentence under s 39A(2) — Consideration of gravity of offence, proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitative objective — Accused aged 33–46 with prospect of reintegration into society. 1 case
Key Statutes
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 7 cases Criminal Procedure Code
cited in 6 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 3 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 2 cases Dangerous Drugs Act
cited in 1 case Federal Constitution
cited in 1 case Police Act 1967 (Cap 344)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Firms
Top Lawyers
Geetha Jora Singh 3 Mohamad Hafiz bin Jalaludin 2 Aliff Aiman bin Rusli 2 Shahrul Nizam bin Mohd Rabi 2 Khazrin Haffiz bin Khalil 1 Raja Mohd Iskandar Zulkharnian bin Raja Abdul Malek 1 GC Tan 1 Mohd Hafiz bin Jalaludin 1 Mohd Izhar bin Ahmad Azmi 1 Mohd Yusri bin Mohd Yusoff 1 Izzat Fakhri bin Halim 1 Ahmed Faazil Rahman bin Saiful Jaafar Sadik 1 Izzat Fakhri bin Halimi 1 Iskandar Shah bin Ibrahim 1 Ismail Hafiz bin Iskandar Shah 1
Cases
ja-45a-34-04-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH WONG MING YANG
11 May 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-33-04-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH YOGESAN A/L KRISHNAN
6 May 2026
MYHC
aa-45a-7-02-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH UMA SELVAM A/L SUBRAMANIAM
20 April 2026
MYHC
aa-45a-14-09-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) ADAM FOONG BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) LEONG WAI KONG 3. ) NGUYEN THI KIM NGAN
12 April 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-35-04-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) PRAKASH A/L RENGANATHAN 2. ) SURESH A/L SUNDARAMOKAN 3. ) NAVENTHRAN PATHAR A/L ARUMUGAM 4. ) VIKNESVARAN A/L RAJANDHARAN 5. ) Arul A/l Marimuthu - Telah Dnaa
3 February 2026
MYHC
ja-41lba-3-06-2025
Pendakwa Raya v MOHD NAJIB BIN MOHAMED SIDEK
28 January 2026
MYHC
ja-41lb-3-06-2025
Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMAD HAFIZI BIN SAAD
29 December 2025
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-45a-11-12-2019
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH 1. ) Visvamurthy A/l Apparasamy 2. ) M Thiyagu A/l Murty 3. ) Sathiaselan A/l Ayakanu 4. ) Siah Chin Aun
9 December 2025
MYHC
aa-45a-1-02-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA] TERTUDUH MUHAMMAD AMIRUL ASHRAF BIN MUHAMMAD SYAFIQ SURASH
14 July 2025
MYHC