Appeal against conviction and sentence
35 cases · September 2024 to May 2026
Case Volume by Year
2 24
26 25
7 26
2024–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Section 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 9(1) of the Poison Act 1952 — Whether the elements of possession and knowledge was proven — Whether preparatory acts amount to trafficking — Whether the presumption of adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 can only be drawn if there has been withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence — Whether failure to cross-examine the accused persons was fatal to the prosecution’s case — Whether High Court Judge had considered and evaluated the defence in its entirety 5 Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession — Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in finding material contradictions — Whether the learned High Court Judge failed to consider material evidence — Whether the learned High Court Judge had properly subjected the prosecution’s evidence to maximum evaluation — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in drawing an adverse inference — Whether there are improbabilities in the Prosecution’s Case — Alleged Failure to Produce Material Evidence. 3 Section 405 & Section 403 Penal Code — Section 4(1)(b) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 — Abetment — Criminal Breach of Trust — Dishonest misappropriation of property — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in failing to decide that there was no offence as per the charges even if all the prosecution evidence was unrebutted or unexplained — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred when his Lordship failed to assess the credibility of the main prosecution witnesses — Whether the Learned High Court Judge failed to take into consideration and/or appreciate the ingredients and requirements of s. 405 PC and consequently failed to conclude that the Appellant’s act did not amount to an offence under s. 405 of the PC read together with s. 109 of the PC — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in deciding that there was a prima facie case of the AMLA charges given that the AMLA charges were predicated on the s.403 charge — Failure to consider all the evidence which is the key aspects of s.182A (1) Criminal Procedure Court 3 s 39B (1) (a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — absence of s 34 of the Penal Code — omission to include in charge — defective charge — prove on higher threshold — control and knowledge — common intention — DNA found — cigarette — towel — unauthorized retention of keys — termination of tenancy — unauthorized access — accepted invitation — no duress — opportunity to decline — consensus — willing participation — bare assertion — substantial quantity of drugs — failed to rebut statutory presumption — presumption of trafficking — adverse inference — s 114 (g) Evidence Act 1950 — failure to call material witness — transfer of ownership — dealing of property — tenancy agreement — mere proximity — flagrant incompetency of counsel — failed to conduct trial competently — failed to cross-examine — miscarriage of justice — different styles in trials 2 statutory caution, whether administered and understood by the Appellant — whether others had access to the place where the drugs were found — trial judge omitted to state whether presumed or actual possession at the close of the prosecution’s case — section 60, Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal against sentence allowed, and order for 5 strokes of whipping set aside and substituted with an order of 12 strokes of whipping. 2 Cross-appeal by the Public Prosecutor against sentence — Murder — Section 302 of the Penal Code — whether the learned High Court Judge erred in finding that a prima facie case had been established — Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced satisfied the legal threshold for conviction — Whether the evidence admitted pursuant to sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 was properly received and relied upon — Whether the defence, including the alibi, raised a reasonable doubt. 2 Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read together with Section 34 Penal Code — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in in failing to properly evaluate the defence — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in failing to consider the Appellant’s assertion that he had no knowledge of the existence of the drugs therein and was unaware that the transaction involved the sale and purchase of drugs — Whether the Appellant was entrapped by third party and used as a drug mule — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in failing to meticulously and comprehensively evaluate the totality of the defence evidence. 2 Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the Learned Judge Failed to Elect Between Section 2 and Section 37(da) DDA — Whether the possession and knowledge were proven — Whether the chain of custody was defective — Whether the defence was not properly evaluated. 1 Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether there is error on the part of the learned Judge in finding that the act of "keeping" the drugs constituted trafficking under section 2 of the DDA — Whether the learned Judge erred by failing to inform the defence that possession and knowledge were being established through the statutory presumption under section 37(d) of the DDA — Whether the learned Judge erred in invoking the presumption under section 37(d) DDA despite finding that possession and knowledge had been established by direct evidence. 1 Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the Appellant was denied a fair trial by reason of the acquittal of OKT2 at the close of the prosecution’s case — Whether the learned High Court Judge failed to properly evaluate and give due consideration to the material aspects of the defence — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in rejecting the Appellant’s defence that he was merely a momentary carrier without knowledge of the drugs. 1 Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether there was a break in the chain of custody — Whether the Appellant was an innocent carrier — Doctrine of willful blindness — Alcontara Notice issue — Whether the investigation was inadequate — Whether the defence as advanced is inherently inconsistent, unsupported by evidence, and incapable of raising any reasonable doubt. 1 Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the police had prior knowledge or it was a random inspection — Whether the trial court’s findings were supported by evidence or based on wrong inference — Whether there was any misdirection on the burden of proof — Whether the prosecution failed to exclude third-party access — Whether the elements of possession, namely custody, control and knowledge were proven beyond reasonable doubt — Whether the learned High Court Judge had undertaken a maximum evaluation of the evidence and gave cogent reasons for rejecting the defence. 1 Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read together with Section 12(3) of the same Act — Whether there were material gaps in the chain of custody of the impugned exhibits — Whether the learned High Court jugde failed to properly evaluate the Defence under Section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code — Dispute as to the recovery of Exhibit 9A — Whether the Appellant has custody, control or knowledge of the drugs found — Proximity insufficient to establish possession — Whether the absence of fingerprint or DNA evidence linking the Appellant to the impugned exhibits undermines the prosecution’s case — Whether the doctrine of wilful blindness ought not to have been invoked — Statutory presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. 1 Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possessions — Section 39A(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act — Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the drugs which formed the subject matter of the charges — Whether the chain of evidence remain intact — Serious doubts as to the identity of the drugs — Misappreciation of the defence and failure to consider the whole of the evidence objectively and from all angles. 1 Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession — Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in failing to make a proper finding of possession with knowledge on the part of the Appellant — Whether the element of knowledge on the part of the Appellant was established — Whether the learned High Court Judge failed to properly consider the break in the chain of evidence relating to the impugned exhibits. 1 Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case — Whether custody, control and possession were proven — Whether there was a failure to administer the caution as required under section 37B(1)(b) DDA 1952 — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in rejecting the evidence of defence witnesses 1 Section 302 of the Penal Code — Whether the learned Judicial Commissioner was correct in fact and law in finding that it was the Appellant who inflicted the injuries to the deceased’s head and face and thereby caused the death of the deceased — Whether the absence of bloodstains or DNA evidence on the Appellant’s clothing and footwear created a reasonable doubt — Whether the Appellant’s voluntary intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intention or knowledge. 1 Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the Appellant was in possession of the impugned drugs and had knowingly trafficked in the said drugs — Whether there was a failure to conduct proper investigations and to call material witnesses — Whether the learned Judge erred in not considering the alleged common intention between Samuk, PW5, and Elyana in relation to the trafficking offence. 1 Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping — Whether the flagrant incompetence of the trial counsel resulted in a breach of the Appellant fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial — Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding the Appellant in mens rea and presumed possession under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding simultaneous actual and presumed trafficking under sections 2 and 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. 1 s.471 of the Penal Code and punishable under s.465 of the same Code — a finding of a prima facie case was made at the end of prosecution case and defence called — issues raised — duplicity of charges — contravention of s.163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) — whether mere irregularity curable under s.422 of the CPC — whether testimony of PW4 tantamount to adducing evidence of bad character of appellant so as to show / insinuate the propensity of appellant to commit forgery thus inadmissible under s.54 of the Evidence Act, 1950 1
+ 3 more
Section 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 9(1) of the Poison Act 1952 — Whether the elements of possession and knowledge was proven — Whether preparatory acts amount to trafficking — Whether the presumption of adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 can only be drawn if there has been withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence — Whether failure to cross-examine the accused persons was fatal to the prosecution’s case — Whether High Court Judge had considered and evaluated the defence in its entirety 5 cases
n-05m-108-03-2023 Salim Sabeer v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
n-05m-109-03-2023 Abdul Kalam Sajeev v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
n-05m-110-03-2023 Radhakrishnan Syam v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
n-05m-111-03-2023 Sainulabdeen Siyad v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
n-05m-112-03-2023 Fazil Farook v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
19 March 2025
Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession — Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in finding material contradictions — Whether the learned High Court Judge failed to consider material evidence — Whether the learned High Court Judge had properly subjected the prosecution’s evidence to maximum evaluation — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in drawing an adverse inference — Whether there are improbabilities in the Prosecution’s Case — Alleged Failure to Produce Material Evidence. 3 cases
Section 405 & Section 403 Penal Code — Section 4(1)(b) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 — Abetment — Criminal Breach of Trust — Dishonest misappropriation of property — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in failing to decide that there was no offence as per the charges even if all the prosecution evidence was unrebutted or unexplained — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred when his Lordship failed to assess the credibility of the main prosecution witnesses — Whether the Learned High Court Judge failed to take into consideration and/or appreciate the ingredients and requirements of s. 405 PC and consequently failed to conclude that the Appellant’s act did not amount to an offence under s. 405 of the PC read together with s. 109 of the PC — Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in deciding that there was a prima facie case of the AMLA charges given that the AMLA charges were predicated on the s.403 charge — Failure to consider all the evidence which is the key aspects of s.182A (1) Criminal Procedure Court 3 cases
statutory caution, whether administered and understood by the Appellant — whether others had access to the place where the drugs were found — trial judge omitted to state whether presumed or actual possession at the close of the prosecution’s case — section 60, Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal against sentence allowed, and order for 5 strokes of whipping set aside and substituted with an order of 12 strokes of whipping. 2 cases
Cross-appeal by the Public Prosecutor against sentence — Murder — Section 302 of the Penal Code — whether the learned High Court Judge erred in finding that a prima facie case had been established — Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced satisfied the legal threshold for conviction — Whether the evidence admitted pursuant to sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 was properly received and relied upon — Whether the defence, including the alibi, raised a reasonable doubt. 2 cases
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read together with Section 34 Penal Code — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in in failing to properly evaluate the defence — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in failing to consider the Appellant’s assertion that he had no knowledge of the existence of the drugs therein and was unaware that the transaction involved the sale and purchase of drugs — Whether the Appellant was entrapped by third party and used as a drug mule — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in failing to meticulously and comprehensively evaluate the totality of the defence evidence. 2 cases
Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the Learned Judge Failed to Elect Between Section 2 and Section 37(da) DDA — Whether the possession and knowledge were proven — Whether the chain of custody was defective — Whether the defence was not properly evaluated. 1 case
Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether there is error on the part of the learned Judge in finding that the act of "keeping" the drugs constituted trafficking under section 2 of the DDA — Whether the learned Judge erred by failing to inform the defence that possession and knowledge were being established through the statutory presumption under section 37(d) of the DDA — Whether the learned Judge erred in invoking the presumption under section 37(d) DDA despite finding that possession and knowledge had been established by direct evidence. 1 case
Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the Appellant was denied a fair trial by reason of the acquittal of OKT2 at the close of the prosecution’s case — Whether the learned High Court Judge failed to properly evaluate and give due consideration to the material aspects of the defence — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in rejecting the Appellant’s defence that he was merely a momentary carrier without knowledge of the drugs. 1 case
Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether there was a break in the chain of custody — Whether the Appellant was an innocent carrier — Doctrine of willful blindness — Alcontara Notice issue — Whether the investigation was inadequate — Whether the defence as advanced is inherently inconsistent, unsupported by evidence, and incapable of raising any reasonable doubt. 1 case
Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the police had prior knowledge or it was a random inspection — Whether the trial court’s findings were supported by evidence or based on wrong inference — Whether there was any misdirection on the burden of proof — Whether the prosecution failed to exclude third-party access — Whether the elements of possession, namely custody, control and knowledge were proven beyond reasonable doubt — Whether the learned High Court Judge had undertaken a maximum evaluation of the evidence and gave cogent reasons for rejecting the defence. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read together with Section 12(3) of the same Act — Whether there were material gaps in the chain of custody of the impugned exhibits — Whether the learned High Court jugde failed to properly evaluate the Defence under Section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code — Dispute as to the recovery of Exhibit 9A — Whether the Appellant has custody, control or knowledge of the drugs found — Proximity insufficient to establish possession — Whether the absence of fingerprint or DNA evidence linking the Appellant to the impugned exhibits undermines the prosecution’s case — Whether the doctrine of wilful blindness ought not to have been invoked — Statutory presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. 1 case
Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possessions — Section 39A(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act — Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the drugs which formed the subject matter of the charges — Whether the chain of evidence remain intact — Serious doubts as to the identity of the drugs — Misappreciation of the defence and failure to consider the whole of the evidence objectively and from all angles. 1 case
Trafficking — Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession — Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in failing to make a proper finding of possession with knowledge on the part of the Appellant — Whether the element of knowledge on the part of the Appellant was established — Whether the learned High Court Judge failed to properly consider the break in the chain of evidence relating to the impugned exhibits. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case — Whether custody, control and possession were proven — Whether there was a failure to administer the caution as required under section 37B(1)(b) DDA 1952 — Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in rejecting the evidence of defence witnesses 1 case
Section 302 of the Penal Code — Whether the learned Judicial Commissioner was correct in fact and law in finding that it was the Appellant who inflicted the injuries to the deceased’s head and face and thereby caused the death of the deceased — Whether the absence of bloodstains or DNA evidence on the Appellant’s clothing and footwear created a reasonable doubt — Whether the Appellant’s voluntary intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intention or knowledge. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the Appellant was in possession of the impugned drugs and had knowingly trafficked in the said drugs — Whether there was a failure to conduct proper investigations and to call material witnesses — Whether the learned Judge erred in not considering the alleged common intention between Samuk, PW5, and Elyana in relation to the trafficking offence. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping — Whether the flagrant incompetence of the trial counsel resulted in a breach of the Appellant fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial — Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding the Appellant in mens rea and presumed possession under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding simultaneous actual and presumed trafficking under sections 2 and 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. 1 case
s.471 of the Penal Code and punishable under s.465 of the same Code — a finding of a prima facie case was made at the end of prosecution case and defence called — issues raised — duplicity of charges — contravention of s.163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) — whether mere irregularity curable under s.422 of the CPC — whether testimony of PW4 tantamount to adducing evidence of bad character of appellant so as to show / insinuate the propensity of appellant to commit forgery thus inadmissible under s.54 of the Evidence Act, 1950 1 case
Section 26J of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2009 (“ATIPSOM”) — smuggling of migrants — Conveyance of smuggled migrants — Whether the six (6) Indonesians are “smuggled migrants” — Section 2 of the ATIPSOM — Whether the Appellant was misled by the charge preferred against him — Whether the charge against the Appellant was defective by the fact that the word “involved” was stated in the charge instead of the word “engages” as per section 26J of ATIPSOM. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Appellant sentenced with imprisonment of 30 years from the date of arrest and 12 strokes of whipping — Whether the appellant had custody and control of the backpack — Whether appellant was the one who rented and/or registered for the room — Whether the mixed DNA profile obtained from the underwear supports the appellant’s defence as to the existence of the third person. 1 case
Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment from date of arrest and 12 strokes of whipping — Whether mens rea knowledge exists — Mens rea possession of the dangerous drugs — The doctrine of ‘wilful blindness’. 1 case
Key Statutes
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 25 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 22 cases Criminal Procedure Code
cited in 14 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 14 cases
cited in 5 cases
Dangerous Drugs Act 1953
cited in 5 cases Poisons Act 1952
cited in 5 cases Evidence Act
cited in 2 cases Evidence Act 1940
cited in 2 cases Criminal Justice Act 1953
cited in 2 cases Special Preventive Measures Act 1985
cited in 2 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 2 cases Federal Constitution
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Noorin binti Badaruddin 30 Azman bin Abdullah 17 Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim 9 Mohd Radzi bin Abdul Hamid 9 Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid 7 Azmi bin Ariffin 6 Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan 4 Azimah binti Omar 3 Collin Lawrence Sequerah 3 Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali 2 Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru 2 Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli 2 Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh 2 Lim Hock Leng 2 Choo Kah Sing 2
Top Firms
Attorney General's Chamber 17 Sharonpal Singh & Associates 5 Salehuddin Saidin & Assoc 5 Jabatan Peguam Negara 4 Wong Kian Kheong 3 Salehuddin Saidin & Associates 2 Alif, Hafiz & Partners 2 Izhar & Yusri 2 P J Perira & Dasan 2 Kit & Associates (Kuala Lumpur) 1 A M Zaharil & Co. (Petaling Jaya) 1 Thomas, Shankar Ram & Co. Adv. (Kuching) 1 Nohin & Partners 1 Johari, Zelika & Amin 1 Rajit Gill & Co. 1
Top Lawyers
Sharonpal Singh 5 Noorhisham Bin Mohd Jaafar 5 Afifuddin bin Ahmad Hafifi 5 Faizal @ Amrin Bin Noor Hadi 4 Solehah Noratikah binti Ismail 4 Low Wei Loke 3 Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik 3 Khairuzzaman Ridha 3 Muhammad Asraf Bin Mohamed Tahir 3 Datuk Mohd Yusof Bin Zainal Abiden 3 Alex Tan Chie Sian 3 Devandran S. Subramaniam 3 Kee Wei Loon 3 Hing Seng Shen 3 Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Bin Wan Ladin 3
Cases
Page 1 of 205l-26-03-2025p
1. ) RAMACHANDRAN A/L VERASAMY 2. ) KELANA BIN YUNUS v Pendakwa Raya
4 May 2026
MYFC
05l-27-03-2025p
1. ) RAMACHANDRAN A/L VERASAMY 2. ) KELANA BIN YUNUS v Pendakwa Raya
4 May 2026
MYFC
m-05sh-157-04-2024
NG CHAN KEONG v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
15 March 2026
MYCOA
b-05sh-400-08-2025
SATIDEVANNAIR A/L RAVI v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]
23 February 2026
MYCOA
s-05h-399-09-2023
Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] v Leong Kwang Yew
8 February 2026
MYCOA
s-05sh-371-09-2023
Leong Kwang Yew v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
8 February 2026
MYCOA
b-05sh-504-10-2024
Ngoforo Ebube Gospel (Nigeria) v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
13 January 2026
MYCOA
b-05sh-177-04-2025
Mohd Izad Bin Matap v Pendakwa Raya
23 November 2025
MYCOA
b-05sh-179-04-2025
Mohd Izad Bin Matap v Pendakwa Raya
23 November 2025
MYCOA
b-05sh-180-04-2025
Mohd Izad Bin Matap v Pendakwa Raya
23 November 2025
MYCOA
a-05h-403-09-2023
Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] v Mohd Nur Hussein Bin Mohd Salleh
3 November 2025
MYCOA
a-05sh-382-09-2023
Mohd Nur Hussein Bin Mohd Salleh v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]
3 November 2025
MYCOA
b-05sh-393-08-2024
Chandrasekar Krishnamoorthy v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
15 October 2025
MYCOA
k-05h-299-08-2023
MOHD JURIB BIN MOHAMAD NAIB v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
12 October 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-61-02-2024
LOKE SEEN YOONG v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]
1 October 2025
MYCOA
j-05h-577-11-2023
MUHAMAD SYAFIQ BIN KASIM v Pendakwa Raya
1 September 2025
MYCOA
w-05m-2-01-2022
MURALIKRISHNA A/L NOKIAH v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]
20 August 2025
MYCOA
w-05m-521-12-2021
1. ) YUARAJA A/L RAJAGOPAL 2. ) Arunasalam A/l Supumaran v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]
20 August 2025
MYCOA
a-05h-245-05-2024
Mahir Affandi Bin Mohamad v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
18 August 2025
MYCOA
b-05sh-619-12-2023
NIZAMMUL HAYAT BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN v Pendakwa Raya
17 August 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-555-11-2023
SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
24 June 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-556-11-2023
SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
24 June 2025
MYCOA
w-05sh-557-11-2023
SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
24 June 2025
MYCOA
s-05m-583-12-2022
Donny @ Mohd Nazmie Bin Musanna v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
17 June 2025
MYCOA
s-05sh-290-08-2023
Saripuddin Bin Sappe v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
16 June 2025
MYCOA