Criminal Procedure
78 cases · November 2017 to June 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 17
1 18
4 19
1 20
1 22
1 24
28 25
41 26
2017–2026
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 Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA] TERTUDUH 1. ) MUHAMMAD NURSAFIQ IKMAL BIN MOHSIN 2. ) MOHAMAD EZUAN BIN ISMAIL
12 April 2026
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
+ 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
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
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
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
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
Appeal — Conviction — Absence of grounds of judgment. 1 case
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Dangerous drugs — Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Elements of trafficking — Burden of proof — Whether prosecution established prima facie case 1 case
Possession of drugs — Physical and mental elements — Whether accused had custody and control — Principle in Chan Pean Leon v PP applied 1 case
Identity of accused — No identification parade conducted — Confusion over identity — Two individuals with same name — Whether charge sustainable 1 case
Packages inspected by staff — No drugs found at point of delivery — Whether evidence sufficient to link accused to seized drugs 1 case
Witness testimony — Material contradictions regarding date, location and number of packages — Whether contradictions raise reasonable doubt 1 case
Common intention — Section 34 Penal Code — No evidence of relationship or joint plan between accused — Whether common intention proven 1 case
Key Statutes
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
cited in 25 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 15 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 14 cases Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 10 cases Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017
cited in 7 cases Federal Constitution
cited in 6 cases Evidence Act
cited in 5 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 3 cases Road Transport Act 1987 (Cap 333)
cited in 3 cases Criminal Justice Act 1953
cited in 3 cases Courts Judiciary Act 1964
cited in 1 case Courts Ordinance
cited in 1 case Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
cited in 1 case Customs Act 1967 (Cap 235)
cited in 1 case Road Traffic Ordinance
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Noor Ruwena binti Md. Nurdin 18 Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff 12 Kalyana Kumar Sockalingam 8 Suria Kumar a/l Durairaj Johnson Paul 8 Avinder Singh Gill a/l Ranjit Singh 7 Abdul Fareed bin Abdul Gafoor 5 Ramly bin Haji Ali 4 Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz 4 Zaharah binti Ibrahim 3 Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat 3 Mohd Zawawi bin Salleh 3 Panglima David Wong Dak Wah 3 Nallini Pathmanathan 3 Azmi bin Ariffin 3 Kan Weng Hin 3
Top Firms
Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Perak 6 M N Halim Syaffie & Associates 5 Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Johor 5 Johor State Legal Advisor's Office 3 Ishrakh Saad & Co 3 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu 3 Ghazali Ismail & Co. 2 S Muthu & Co. 2 Salehuddin Saidin & Associates 2 K. Siladass & Partners 2 Nik Ikhwan & Co. 2 Alan Lim, Poh & Oh 1 Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor 1 Law Chambers of HY Gan 1 Safiah Aziz & Co. 1
Top Lawyers
Nur Aqiilah binti Ahmad Rofaie 6 Syaffie bin Naim 5 Mohd Waffy Bin Ismail 3 Sally Chay Mei Ling 3 Mandave Singh Gill 3 Nur Sulehan binti Abd Rahman 3 Noradila Binti Ab Latif 3 Faridah Nurdinie Bte Bahrum 3 Ghazali Bin Ismail 2 Puteri Hikmatul Raudhah Dzulaika Binti Mohamad 2 M. Saravanan 2 How May Ling 2 Ahmad Ishrakh Bin Saad 2 Nik Mohamed Ikhwan bin Nik Mahamud 2 Foo Fang Leong 2
Cases
Page 1 of 4jb-45a-6-01-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MUHAMAD FAUZIE BIN MASRI
23 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-1-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-2-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-3-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-4-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsksa-5-06-2025
ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
MYHC
jb-42jsks-2-08-2025
KHAIRULIZAM BIN MUSTAPA v Pendakwa Raya
3 June 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-140-11-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH JAGAPRKHASAM A/L JAGANATHAN
2 June 2026
MYHC
ja-43-10-05-2026
SWARAN SINGH A/L MOTA SINGH v Pendakwa Raya
11 May 2026
MYHC
ta-42s-7-12-2024
ONG SIM WEI v Pendakwa Raya
6 May 2026
MYHC
ja-41lb-4-08-2025
Pendakwa Raya v MOHD ISMAIL BIN ISHAK
4 May 2026
MYHC
wa-44-15-02-2026
Shamsul Iskandar @ Yusre Bin Mohd Akin v Pendakwa Raya
27 April 2026
MYHC
wa-45a-44-08-2023
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH 1. ) KRISNAN A/L ARUMUGAM 2. ) SURESH A/L NADARAJAH 3. ) NAGARAJAN A/L RAJOO
16 April 2026
MYHC
jb-45a-2-02-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA] TERTUDUH 1. ) MUHAMMAD NURSAFIQ IKMAL BIN MOHSIN 2. ) MOHAMAD EZUAN BIN ISMAIL
12 April 2026
MYHC
ta-41lba-1-04-2025
Pendakwa Raya v MOHD FAIZOL BIN MAT AZMIN
7 April 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-106-06-2022
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) Mohd Khairul Azhar Bin Dollah 2. ) Khairul (Perempuan)
6 April 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-35-03-2023
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH RUBEN A/L SELVA KUMAR
6 April 2026
MYHC
ta-41lb-9-12-2024
Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMMAD SABREE BIN ABD WAHAB
6 April 2026
MYHC
wa-45b-3-03-2023
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH MOHAN A/L MURUGESU
6 April 2026
MYHC
ja-42ra-13-09-2025
ALIAS BIN JAAFAR v Pendakwa Raya
1 April 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-19-04-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA] TERTUDUH Cheng Sim Chen (Zheng Xincheng)
1 April 2026
MYHC
ja-42jsks-14-07-2025
MOHAMAD IRFAN SHAH BIN SASHI HAAN v Pendakwa Raya
15 March 2026
MYHC
ta-42jsklb-3-11-2024
Pendakwa Raya v ANWARI BIN TABRANI
15 March 2026
MYHC
wa-45a-62-09-2021
PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH SHAHRUL BIN SALLEH
12 March 2026
MYHC
wa-41h-10-05-2025
Pendakwa Raya v SANJAY KUMAR A/L SELVAKUMARU
11 March 2026
MYHC