You are on page 1of 6

9/29/2015

Case:[2015]5CLJ1042

[2015]5CLJ1042
ZALAZILAHMOHDYUNUSv.PP
COURTOFAPPEAL,PUTRAJAYA
AZIAHALIJCAZAKARIASAMJCAABANGISKANDARJCA
[CRIMINALAPPEALNO:B05105042012]

CRIMINALPROCEDURE:AppealAppealagainstconvictionandsentenceAccusedconvictedfortraffickingdrugs
andsentencedtodeathAccuseddeniedknowledgeofdrugsDefencethataccusedwascarryingstolenlaptoptobe
passedtoanotherpersonWhetherdefenceprobableWhetherdefencewasconcoctedWhethertrialjudgecarried
out maximum evaluation of evidence adduced Whether a case of passive possession Dangerous Drugs Act, s.
39B(1)(a)
Uponreceivinginformationthatacertaindrugtraffickingactivitywouldtakeplace,apoliceteamledbyPW7headed
tothesaidlocationandconductedsurveillanceofthearea.Amaleridingamotorcycle('theappellant')wasstopped
by PW7. The appellant attempted to run away but was successfully apprehended by the police. A bag ('P6')
recovered from the basket of the appellant's motorcycle was found to contain two packets of compressed material
wrappedinplasticwhichwaslaterconfirmedbythechemisttobe1735gofcannabis.Theappellantwaschargedat
theHighCourtfortraffickingin1735gofcannabis,anoffenceunders.39B(1)(a)oftheDangerousDrugsAct1952
('DDA').Theappellant'sdefencewasthathehadreceivedacallfromoneMohamadFairustomeethimanddiscuss
about the former's visa matter. After the meeting, PW6 took out a bag from underneath the table and told the
appellantthatitwasastolenlaptoptobepassedtooneHafiz.PW6gavetheappellantRM50forpetrolandinstructed
himtostopbytheroadsideinorderforHafiztocollectit.Itwasattheroadsidethathewasarrestedbythepolice
whileHafizmanagedtoflee.TheappellantthenledthepolicetoPW6andPW6wasarrested.Inhisevidence,PW6
deniedgivinganybagtotheappellantoraskingtheappellanttodeliverthesametoHafiz.Attheconclusionofthe
defence case, the trial judge accepted PW6's testimony and found that the appellant had concocted his story. The
appellant was found guilty and convicted for the offence and sentenced to death. Hence, the present appeal. The
appellantsubmittedthat(i)thetrialjudgefailedtocarryoutamaximumevaluationoftheevidenceadducedand(ii)at
thehighest,thiswasacaseofpassivepossession.
Held(allowingappealandsettingasideconvictionandsentenceofHighCourtfindingappellantguiltyof
possessionandsentencedto18yearsimprisonmentandtenstrokesofwhipping)
PerAziahAliJCAdeliveringthejudgmentofthecourt:
(1)Atthetimeofhisarrest,theappellanthad,inanswertoPW7,toldPW7thatthebagwasgiventohim
byPW6.Theappellant'sstatementtoPW7wasmadespontaneously.Theappellantwouldhavehadno
time to concoct it because he would have been taken by surprise by the appearance of PW7 and his
team.ThemannerinwhichtheappellantansweredPW7wouldindicatethatthecontentsofhisanswer
were probably true. The trial judge had not directed his mind to the evidence when His Lordship
disbelievedtheappellantandfoundthattheappellanthadconcoctedhisstory.(paras18&20)
(2)Thetrialjudgeoughttohaveproperlyaddressedhismindtothecircumstancesofthiscaseandtothe
evidence which showed that PW6 was involved in drugrelated activities. Had the trial judge properly
considered the evidence, His Lordship ought to have treated the testimony of PW6 with caution and
oughttohaveconsideredthathisoutrightdenialofinvolvementwiththeappellantmightbeselfserving.
(para24)
(3) The appellant was caught with the bag containing the drugs. Thus, at the material time, he had
possessionofthebagandthedrugsinsidethebag.Knowledgemightbeinferredfromhisactoftryingto
flee. The trial judge had correctly found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case of
trafficking against the appellant. However, the probability that PW6 was the real trafficker could not be
discounted.Thedefencehad,onabalanceofprobabilities,rebuttedthepresumptionunders.37(da)of
the DDA which was invoked against the appellant. The appellant was acquitted of the charge of
trafficking. However, there was sufficient evidence to support an offence of possession under s. 6
punishableunders.39A(2)oftheDDA.(paras27&28)
BahasaMalaysiaTranslationOfHeadnotes
Sebaik sahaja menerima maklumat bahawa satu aktiviti pengedaran dadah akan berlaku, sepasukan polis yang
diketuaiolehPW7bergegaskelokasitersebutdanmenjalankanpemantauanpadakawasantersebut.Seoranglelaki
yang menunggang motosikal ('perayu') telah diberhentikan oleh PW7. Perayu cuba melarikan diri tetapi berjaya
diberkasolehpihakpolis.Sebuahbeg('P6')dijumpaidalambakulmotosikalperayudidapatimengandungiduapaket
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=3001024769&SearchId=7maralib1

1/6

9/29/2015

Case:[2015]5CLJ1042

bahan mampat dibalut dengan plastik yang kemudiannya disahkan oleh ahli kimia sebagai 1735g kanabis. Perayu
dipertuduhdiMahkamahTinggikeranamengedar1735gkanabis,satukesalahandibawahs.39B(1)(a)AktaDadah
Berbahaya('ADB'). Pembelaan perayu adalah bahawa dia telah menerima satu panggilan daripada seorang yang
bernama Mohamad Fairus untuk bertemu dengannya dan membincangkan mengenai hal visa perayu. Selepas
mesyuarat tersebut, PW6 mengeluarkan sebuah beg dari bawah meja dan memberitahu perayu bahawa ia adalah
komputerribayangdicuridanperludiserahkankepadaHafiz.PW6memberikanRM50kepadaperayuuntukpetrol
danmengarahkannyaagarberhentiditepijalanagarHafizbolehmengambilnya.Ditepijalanitulahdiaditangkapoleh
polis sementara Hafiz berjaya melarikan diri. Perayu kemudiannya membawa pihak polis kepada PW6 dan PW6
ditangkap.Dalamketerangannya,PW6menafikanadamemberisebarangbegkepadaperayuataumemintaperayu
menyerahkannyakepadaHafiz.Dipenutupkespembelaan,hakimbicaramenerimaketeranganPW6danmendapati
bahawa perayu telah merekareka cerita. Perayu didapati bersalah dan disabitkan atas kesalahan serta dijatuhkan
hukuman mati. Oleh itu, rayuan ini. Perayu menghujahkan bahawa (i) hakim bicara gagal memberi pertimbangan
penuhkeatasketeranganyangdikemukakandan(ii)palingtidak,iniadalahkesmilikanpasif.
Diputuskan(membenarkanrayuandanmengenepikansabitandanhukumanMahkamahTinggimendapati
perayubersalahatasmilikandandijatuhkanhukumanpenjara18tahundansepuluhkalisebatan)
OlehAziahAliHMRmenyampaikanpenghakimanmahkamah:
(1) Semasa tangkapannya perayu telah, menjawab soalan PW7, memberitahu PW7 bahawa beg
tersebut diberikan kepadanya oleh PW6. Kenyataan PW7 dibuat secara spontan. Perayu tidak sempat
merekanyakeranadiasemestinyaterperanjatdengankehadiranPW7danpasukannya.Carabagaimana
perayu menjawab PW7 menunjukkan bahawa intipati jawapannya adalah benar. Hakim bicara tidak
mengarahkanmindabeliaukepadaketerangantersebutapabilaYangAriftidakpercayaakanperayudan
mendapatibahawaperayutelahmerekarekacerita.
(2) Hakim bicara sewajarnya mengarahkan minda beliau kepada hal keadaan kes ini dan kepada
keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa PW6 terlibat dengan aktiviti berkaitan dadah. Sekiranya hakim
bicara mempertimbangkan keterangan dengan betul, beliau akan mempertimbangkan keterangan PW6
denganberhatihatidansewajarnyamempertimbangkanbahawapenafianterangteranganpenglibatan
denganperayumungkinmempunyaikepentingandiri.
(3) Perayu ditangkap dengan beg yang mengandungi dadah. Oleh itu, pada masa material, dia
mempunyai milikan beg dan dadah dalam beg tersebut. Pengetahuan boleh disimpulkan daripada
tindakannya yang cuba melarikan diri. Hakim bicara telah, dengan betul, memutuskan bahawa pihak
pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes pengedaran secara prima facie terhadap perayu. Walau
bagaimanapun, kemungkinan bahawa PW6 adalah pengedar sebenar tidak boleh dikurangkan.
Pembelaantelah,atasimbangankebarangkalian,menyangkalanggapandibawahs.37(da)ADB yang
dibangkitkan terhadap perayu. Perayu dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan pengedaran.
Walau bagaimanapun, terdapat keterangan yang mencukupi untuk menyokong pertuduhan milikan di
bawahs.6yangbolehdihukumdibawahs.39A(2)ADB.
[AppealfromHighCourt,ShahAlamCriminalTrialNo:45A2592010]
ReportedbyNajibTamby
Case(s)referredto:
PPv.BadrulshamBaharom[1987]1LNS72HC(refd)
Legislationreferredto:
DangerousDrugsAct1952,ss.2,6,37(da),39A(2),39B(1)(a),(2)
Counsel:
FortheappellantHisyamTehPohTeikM/sTehPohTeik&Co
FortherespondentNahraDollahDPP

JUDGMENT
AziahAliJCA:
[1] The appellant, Zalazilah bin Mohd Yunus was charged with an offence under s. 39B(1)(a) punishable under s.
39B(2)oftheDangerousDrugsAct1952("theAct").Thechargereadsasfollows:
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=3001024769&SearchId=7maralib1

2/6

9/29/2015

Case:[2015]5CLJ1042

Bahawakamu,pada17Ogos2010,jamlebihkurang4.30petangditepiJalanPJU5/1,KotaDamansara,
di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah memperedarkan dadah
berbahaya ia itu sejumlah berat 1735 gram Cannabis dan oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan
suatukesalahandibawahsekyen39B(1)(a)AktaDadahBerbahaya1952danbolehdihukumdibawah
seksyen39B(2)Aktayangsama.
[2]Attheendofthetrial,theHighCourtjudgefoundtheappellantguiltyascharged.Theappellantwasconvictedand
sentencedtodeath,hencethisappeal.Attheconclusionoftheappealbeforeus,weallowedhisappealagainstthe
convictionandsentencefortheoffenceunders.39B(1)(a).However,wefoundtheappellantguiltyoftheoffenceof
possession under s. 6 and punishable under s. 39A(2) of the Act. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonmentfor18yearswitheffectfromthedateofhisarrestandtenstrokesoftherotan.
ProsecutionCase
[3]Theevidenceadducedbytheprosecutionmaybesummarisedasfollows:
(a)on17August2010atabout12noon,ChiefInspectorMohdShukribinZulkifly(PW7)receivedacall
fromasourceinforminghimthatamaleMalayinhisfortiesridingamotorcyclenumberKAS8965would
becarryingoutdrugtraffickingactivitiesintheJalanPJU5/1areabetween3pmto8pm
(b) at about 3.45pm the same day, PW7 and his team arrived at the said location and conducted
surveillanceofthearea
(c) at about 4pm, PW7 saw a male (identified as the appellant) wearing a white helmet riding a blue
coloured Modenas motorcycle bearing registration number KAS 8965. PW7 and his team followed the
motorcycle.PW7stoppedthemotorcyclebythesideoftheroadPJU5/1nearRHBBank
(d)accordingtoPW7,atthattime,themotorcyclewasslowandabouttostop.Theappellantwasalone.
PW7 said when he identified himself, the appellant appeared frightened and tried to run away but was
apprehended
(e)anexaminationoftheappellant'sbodyrevealednoincriminatingsubstance
(f)PW7recoveredablackbag(exh.P6)fromthebasketoftheappellant'smotorcycleandfrominsidethe
bag,PW7foundtwopacketsofcompressedmaterialwrappedinplasticsuspectedtobecannabis
(g) PW7 then brought the appellant, the motorcycle, the bag and its contents back to the Damansara
PoliceStation
(h)thetwopacketsofcompressedmaterialwereanalysedbythechemist,SuhanabintiIsmail(PW1)who
foundthesubstancetobe1735gofcannabiswhichformedthesubjectmatterofthecharge.
DefenceCase
[4]Theappellantgaveevidenceonoath.Hewasthesolewitnessforthedefence.Hisdefencecanbesummarisedas
follows:
(a)onthemorningofthedayoftheincident,hehadgonetotheImmigrationDepartmenttorenewhis
Indonesianwife'svisa.Afterthat,hewenthomeandhadhislunch
(b)atabout1.40pm,hereceivedacallfromafriend,MohamadFairusbinOmar(PW6)whosewifeworks
withtheImmigrationDepartment.Accordingtotheappellant,PW6'swifehadhelpedhimwithhiswife's
visapreviously
(c) PW6 asked him whether he was free, and if he was, to meet PW6 at Restoran Pelita in Kota
Damansara.PW6saidhewantedtofindoutaboutthevisamatter.Sotheappellantrodehismotorcycle
togoandmeetPW6
(d) the appellant arrived at the restaurant at about 2.30pm. He saw that PW6 was already inside the
restaurant
(e)afterconversationanddrinks,theappellantwantedtoleave.Then,PW6tookoutalaptopbag(exh.
P6) from underneath the table. PW6 told the appellant the laptop is 'laptop panas', which the appellant
understoodtomeanthatitwasastolenlaptop
(f)PW6requestedhimtohandoverthebagtohisfriendbythenameof'Hafiz'ataplaceneartheRHB
Bank.PW6toldhimtostopbytheroadsideand'Hafiz'willcome.Accordingtotheappellant,PW6told
himthathehadnotransporttogotothesaidplace.PW6gavetheappellantRM50as'duitminyak'
(g)theappellantagreedtotherequestsincetheplacewherehewastomeetHafizwasnotfarfromthe
restaurantandalsobecausehewasgivenRM50byPW6
(h)whentheappellantarrivedatthelocationnearthebank,amotorcyclecameandstoppedinfrontof
himbytheroadside.Theriderofthemotorcycleapproachedhimandsaidthathewas'Hafiz'andasked
whethertheappellanthasthelaptopgiventohimbyPW6
(i)suddenly,amotorcarcameandblockedhimandHafizranoff.Theappellantsaidhewassurprisedwhy
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=3001024769&SearchId=7maralib1

3/6

9/29/2015

Case:[2015]5CLJ1042

Hafizhadrunawaywithouttakingthelaptopbag.
[5]Theappellantdeniedthathehadtriedtorunaway.Hedeniedthathewascarryingdrugs.Hesaidthathehadtold
thepersonwhoarrestedhimthathisfriend,PW6hadaskedhimtogivethebagtoHafizwhohadrunaway.Hetold
thepolicetoarrestHafiz.
[6]Atthepolicestation,theappellantsaidhewasallowedbythepolicetocallPW6.HecalledandtoldPW6thathe
wantedtomeetPW6.PW6toldhimthathewasathisshopinChowKit.TheappellantledthepolicetoPW6whowas
chattingwithhisfriendsandwatchingtelevision.Onarrival,theappellantremainedinthepolicecarwhiletwoorthree
policemengotoutandarrestedPW6.
[7]PW6inhisevidencedeniedgivinganybagtotheappellantoraskingtheappellanttodeliverabagwithalaptopto
Hafiz.Hedeniedbeinginvolvedinanydrugtransactionwiththeappellant.Hedeniedthathehadmadearrangements
forHafiztocollectthebagfromtheappellant.
[8]TheexplanationgivenbyPW6astowhyhewasinthevicinityonthedayoftheincidentwasthatatabout2pm,he
had gone to the Bank Simpanan Nasional at Kota Damansara to deposit money. The bank was near to his house
whichisinFloraDamansara.Whenhecameoutofthebank,hesawtheappellantwhowasalone.Hehadaskedthe
appellantabouttheappellant'swife'svisaandtheappellantsaidthatithadbeendone.
[9] PW6 agreed that he was picked up by the police at his shop in Chow Kit pursuant to information given by the
appellant. However, he was later released by the police. PW6 admitted that he had previously been imprisoned on
drugrelatedcharges.
DecisionOfTheHighCourt
[10]Attheendofthedefencecase,thetrialjudgefoundthat,atthematerialtime,theappellanthadfullpossessionof
the bag and had knowledge of the drugs in the bag. Further, His Lordship inferred knowledge from the appellant's
conduct.HisLordshipsaidasfollows(pp.247248appealrecord):
For any drug trafficking charge to stick it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove possession of the
drugsbytheaccused.Inthiscasetheprosecution'sjobwasmadeeasybytheaccusedadmittingthatat
thematerialtimehewasincustodyandcontroloftheblackbagfromwhichthedrugswerefound.
The admission by the accused aside, SP7's evidence that he had tailed accused who was riding the
motorcyclealoneandtheevidencethatatallmaterialtimethemotorcyclewasbeingusedbytheaccused
leavesnoroomfordoubtthatatthematerialtimeitwastheaccusedwhohadthesolecustodyofnotonly
ofthemotorcyclebutalsooftheblackbagcontainingthedrugs.
Atp.250thetrialjudgesaid:
InshortIacceptedtheevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnesseswhichclearlyprovedthatatthematerialtime
theaccusedwasinfullpossessionofthebagcontainingthedrugsandhadalsoknowledgeofthedrugsin
the bag. The knowledge of the drugs could also be inferred from the conduct of the accused when he
desperatelytriedtoescapewhenbeingdetainedbythepolice.
[11]Thetrialjudgehadrejectedtheappellant'sdefencethathewasgiventhebagbyPW6.Thereasonsforthetrial
judgedisbelievingtheappellant'sdefenceareasfollows:
(a)thatitwasillogicalforPW6nottohandtheblackbagtoHafizhimselfbecausetheappellanthimself
hadtestifiedthattheplacewherethebagwastobedeliveredcouldbeseenfromtherestaurant,soPW6
couldhavejustwalkedtotheplace
(b)sincePW6knewtheappellantwell,hecouldhavechosenamorediscreetplacetohandoverthebag
totheappellantandnotdoitatarestaurantinthesightofeverybody
(c)iftheappellantwastellingthetruth,thenhewouldhaveatthefirstavailableopportunity,informedthe
police about PW6 handing him the black bag. At no time did the appellant mention to the investigating
officer,PW7thattheblackbagwasgiventohimbyPW6
(d) PW7 had stated that the appellant did inform him about PW6 but it was in relation to drug related
activities
(e)PW7saidthattherewasnooneelseatthescenewhenhedetainedtheappellant.
ThetrialjudgeacceptedthetestimonyofPW6andfoundthattheappellanthadconcoctedhisstory.HisLordshipsaid
asfollows(p.250appealrecord):
It is clear that the accused had concocted the story about SP6's involvement by taking advantage of a
chance meeting with SP6 on the day in question. I believed the testimony of SP6 that he had met the
accusedbychanceoutsideaBankonthedayinquestion.
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=3001024769&SearchId=7maralib1

4/6

9/29/2015

Case:[2015]5CLJ1042

[12]Attheendofthedefencecase,thetrialjudgefoundthattheappellanthasfailedtorebutthepresumptionunders.
37(da)oftheAct.Further,withreferencetos.2oftheActwhichprovidesthat'trafficking'includes'delivery'aswellas
'transport' of dangerous drugs, the trial judge was of the view that it was reasonable to infer that the appellant was
carryingthedrugstobehandedtosomeonebecause,accordingtoPW7,whenhewastailingtheappellant,henoticed
thattheappellantwasslowingdownhismotorcycleanumberoftimesasthoughhewaslookingoutforsomeone.
TheAppeal
[13]Learnedcounselfortheappellant,MrHisyamTehPohTeikraisedtwogroundsbeforeus:
(a)thatthetrialjudgehadfailedtocarryoutamaximumevaluationoftheevidenceadduced
(b)alternatively,thatatthehighest,thisisacaseofpassivepossession.
[14]LearnedcounselsubmittedthatthetrialjudgehadfailedtoappreciatethedefencewhenHisLordshipdisbelieved
the appellant and found that the appellant had concocted the story about the involvement of PW6 because the
appellanthadfailedtodisclosehisdefencetothepoliceatthefirstavailableopportunity.
[15]Learnedcounselreferredustothegroundsofjudgmentwherethetrialjudgesaidasfollows(p.249ofappeal
record):
Furtheriftheaccusedwastellingthetruthhewouldhaveatthefirstavailableopportunityinformedthe
policeaboutSP6handinghimtheblackbag.Accordingtotheinvestigatingofficeralthoughtheaccused
hadinformedhimaboutSP6itwasinrelationtodrugrelatedactivities.Itwasa[sic]SP6hadservedterm
fordrugrelatedoffence.Howeveratnotimetheaccusedmentionedtotheinvestigatingofficerthatthe
blackbagwasgiventohimbySP6.
[16]LearnedcounselfurtherreferredustothetestimonyofPW7incrossexaminationwhichshowsthattheappellant
had,uponbeingaskedbyPW7,statedthatthebagwasgiventohimbyPW6tobegiventoHafiz.Thetestimonyof
PW7isasfollows(p.116appealrecord):

SLM

Inspektor,setujujikasayacadangkankepadaInspektor,bahawa
setelah beg dadah, beg yang mengandungi dadah tersebut
dijumpai, Inspektor telah bertanyakan kepada Zalazilah, yang
beliaumenyatakanbegitudiberikanolehFairusOmar?

SHUKRI

Setuju,YangArif

SLM

Setuju?

SHUKRI

Setuju?

YA

Setuju?

SHUKRI

Setuju

SLM

Dan saya juga cadangkan kepada Inspektor, bahawa Zalazilah


ini juga menyatakan kepada Inspektor dan serbuan bahawa dia
menungguHafizuntukmenyerahkanbegtersebut.

SHUKRI

Itusayatidakpasti.

[17]Apartfromtheabove,learnedcounselhadsubmittedthattheappellanthadalsogiventothepoliceinformation
whichledtoPW7andhisteamgoingtoChowKitwherePW6wasarrested.
[18]Weagreewithlearnedcounselthat,atthetimeofhisarrest,theappellanthad,inanswertoPW7,toldPW7that
thebagwasgiventohimbyPW6.
[19]InPublicProsecutorv.BadrulshamBaharom[1987]1LNS72[1988]2MLJ585,LimBengChoonJsaid:
...itisnotwrongtosaytheaccused'sstateofmindmaybegatheredfromtheevidenceofwhathedidor
failedtodoorwhathesaidontheoccasioninquestion.Puttingitshortly,onemaysaythatinorderto
arriveatafindingofknowledgethecourtwillhavetoconsiderthetotalityoftheevidenceincludingany
explanationsanddenialsmadebytheaccusedandhisconductontheoccasioninquestion.
[20] We are of the view that the appellant's statement to PW7 was made spontaneously in answer to PW7. The
appellantwouldhavehadnotimetoconcoctitbecausehewouldhavebeentakenbysurprisebytheappearanceof
PW7andhisteam.ThemannerinwhichtheappellantansweredPW7wouldindicatethatthecontentsofhisanswer
wasprobablytrue.Weagreewiththelearnedcounselthatthetrialjudgehasnotdirectedhismindtothisevidence
whenHisLordshipdisbelievedtheappellantandfoundthattheappellanthadconcoctedhisstory.
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=3001024769&SearchId=7maralib1

5/6

9/29/2015

Case:[2015]5CLJ1042

[21]LearnedcounselhadfurthersubmittedthatthetrialjudgehadfailedtoadheretotheRadhi'sdirectionwithregard
to PW6 because the defence had adduced evidence through PW6 himself that he had previously been charged for
drugrelatedactivities.ThedefencehadputtoPW6thathewasatrafficker,whichhedenied.Itwassubmittedthatin
thepresentcase,PW6couldhavebeentherealtrafficker.
[22]WehaveconsideredtheevidenceofPW6inwhichheadmittedthat,atabout2pmonthedayoftheincident,he
had met the appellant at the bank by chance. The appellant stated that he had met up with PW6 at the restaurant.
However,PW6deniedmeetingtheappellantattherestaurant.
[23] The trial judge accepted the evidence of PW6 apparently without any reservation. PW6 had "flatly denied" (to
quotethetrialjudge),givinganyblackbagtotheappellant.
[24]Weareoftheviewthatthetrialjudgeoughttohaveproperlyaddressedhismindtothecircumstancesofthiscase
and to the evidence which showed that PW6 was involved in drug related activities. Had the trial judge properly
consideredtheevidence,thenHisLordshipoughttohavetreatedthetestimonyofPW6withcautionandoughttohave
consideredthathisoutrightdenialofinvolvementwiththeappellantmaybeselfserving.
[25]Thetrialjudgefoundthattheappellanthadliedwhenhesaidthathehadagreedtosendthebagattherequestof
PW6becausePW6hadtoldhimthathehadnotransport.Thisiswhatthelearnedjudgesaid:
Itbecameapparentthatitwastheaccusedwhowastellinglieswhentoaquestionaskedtohimastowhy
SP6himselfdidnothandtheblackbagtoHafiztheaccusedrepliedthatSP6hadnotransport.Thisreply
wasclearlyillogicalinthefaceoftheaccusedowntestimonythattheplacewherehewastodeliverthe
bagcouldbeseenfromtherestaurantwherehewassittingwithSP6.Iftheplaceofdeliverywassoclose
bywhydidSP6requiretransport.Hecouldjustwalktotheplace.
[26]ItispertinenttonotethataccordingtoPW7,thedistancefromtherestauranttotheplacewherehehadarrested
theappellantisabout300metresormore.Thus,whetherthatdistanceisnearorfarissubjective.Intheabsenceof
anyevidencefromPW6,weareoftheviewthatthetrialjudge'sopinionthatPW6himselfcouldhavedeliveredthebag
himselfismerelyspeculative.
[27]Wehaveconsideredtheevidenceadducedbytheprosecution.Theappellantwascaughtwiththebagcontaining
thedrugs.Thus,atthematerialtime,hehadpossessionofthebagandthedrugsinsidethebag.Weagreewiththe
trial judge that knowledge may be inferred from his act of trying to flee. The trial judge has correctly found that the
prosecutionhasestablishedaprimafaciecaseoftraffickingagainsttheappellant.
[28]However,havingconsideredthedefence,wefindthatwecouldnotdiscounttheprobabilitythatPW6wasthereal
trafficker. Consequently, we are of the view that the defence had, on a balance of probabilities, rebutted the
presumptionunders.37(da)whichwasinvokedagainsttheappellant.Inthecircumstances,weacquittedtheappellant
of the charge of trafficking. However, we find sufficient evidence to support an offence of possession under s. 6
punishableunders.39A(2)oftheAct.
Conclusion
[29]Forthereasonsstatedabove,weallowedtheappealandsetasidetheconvictionandsentenceimposedbythe
HighCourt.Wefindtheappellantguiltyandconvictedhimfortheoffenceofpossession.Wesentencedtheappellant
to18years'imprisonmentwitheffectfromthedateofhisarrestandtenstrokesofwhipping.

Disclaimer|PrivacyPolicy|TermsofTrade|Terms&ConditionsofUse|LicenceAgreement|FAQ|Sitemap
Copyright2015CLJLegalNetworkSdnBhd.
Email:enquiries@cljlaw.comTel:60342705421Fax:60342705402

http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=3001024769&SearchId=7maralib1

6/6