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

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us