Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

DANGEROUS DRUGS — TRAFFICKING — EXAMINATION OF DRUG TRAFFICKING CHARGES AND DEFENSE CLAIMSDOUBT — DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT 1952 S 39B

Illustrative Scenario

X was caught with two slabs of plant material in his sling bag, which was later identified as cannabis. X’s defense was that he had no knowledge of the drugs in the bag and claimed that the sling bag did not belong to him. X stated that he picked up the bag from another person named Y.

Issues

  • Whether the possession of the drugs was for the purpose of trafficking?
  • Whether X’s statement and defense successfully raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case?

Legal Principles & Law

  • Section 2 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952: Defines various acts related to dangerous drugs, including manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping, concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing, administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering, procuring, supplying, or distributing any dangerous drug without authority under the Act or its regulations.
  • Section 39B Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs:
    1. (1) No person shall, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, whether or not such other person is in Malaysia—
      (a) Traffic in a dangerous drug;
      (b) Offer to traffic in a dangerous drug; or
      (c) Do or offer to do an act preparatory to or for the purpose of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
    2. (2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be punished on conviction with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, be punished with whipping of not less than twelve strokes.
  • Section 8 Evidence Act 1950: Discusses conduct such as absconding or fleeing after the commission of an offence. However, evidence of mere absconding or flight is not a vital circumstance that can be considered to show that the absconder had a guilty mind.

Application and Sentencing

  • The court applied the legal principles to the facts and determined that:
    1. The amount and manner of carrying the cannabis suggested an intent to traffic, as outlined in S.39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
    2. X’s defense of lack of knowledge and ownership was insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, consistent with S.8 of the Evidence Act 1950, which requires credible evidence to support such claims.
  • Consequently, the court found X guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced him to the mandatory penalty of death by hanging.

Reference Cases

  • Zulfikar V PP [2001] 1 SLR 633
  • Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256
  • Tan Ah Tee & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1978-1979] SLR 211
  • Wong Nam Loi v PP [1998] 1 CLJ 37
  • Tunde Apatira & Ors v PP [2001] 1 CLJ 381
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us