The established principle is that possession of a large quantity of drugs creates a rebuttable presumption of knowledge regarding their illegal nature under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

[1] The appellant, an Iranian national was charged in the High Court at Shah Alam with trafficking in a dangerous drug and the charge against him is as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 26 Disember 2009, lebih kurang jam 2.45 petang di Kaunter Pemeriksaan Kastam "D", Cawangan Pemeriksaan Penumpang 1 (CPP1), Balai Ketibaan Antarabangsa, Terminal Utama Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur, di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 540.9 gram, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

[2] At the conclusion of the trial he was found guilty and sentenced to death. This is his appeal against the conviction and sentence. The salient facts are as follows. On 26 January 2009 at about 2.45pm on his arrival at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport from Doha, Qatar the appellant was asked by Customs Officer Mokhadinil Akma bin Mokhtar (SP3) to have his bag scanned. He did as told and as he was bending down to lift the bag, SP3 noticed a bulge on the back of the jacket that he was wearing. After getting the appellant's permission, SP3 touched the bulge with his hand and it felt like sand.

[3] At the same time SP3 was informed by Customs Officer Nur Shakirah binti Zulkifli (SP4) who was operating the scanning machine that a suspicious green image was detected inside the appellant's bag. The appellant was then asked to go to another room at the airport for a further check. Both the bag and the jacket were checked. The appellant himself opened the bag by turning the combination numbers of the lock.

[4] When the bag was opened and the contents removed, Senior Customs Officer Elangovan a/l Rethnesamy (SP5) found two packets of crystalline substances hidden in two secret compartments on the right and left walls of the bag. A check on the jacket also revealed a hidden packet containing crystalline substances. SP5 had to make a small cut at the bulging section of the jacket to retrieve the packet.

[5] The crystalline substances found in the appellant's bag and jacket were sent for analysis and were confirmed by the Chemist to contain 540.9 grams of methamphetamine. Possession without lawful authority of 50 grams or more of this drug attracts the presumption of trafficking under s 37(da)(xvi) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('the DDA ').

[6] On these facts the learned trial judge was satisfied that a prima facie case had been established against the appellant and he then called upon the appellant to enter his defence. Having heard the defence he found that the appellant's explanation failed to cast any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Accordingly he found the appellant guilty as charged.

[7] Before us the verdict was attacked on the following grounds:

(1) No written grounds of judgment were given by the learned trial judge.

(2) Failure by the police to investigate the information given by the appellant of the role played by Ashgar Zabzali whom the appellant claimed was the person who gave the bag to him to be brought to Malaysia.

(3) No fingerlifting done by the Investigating Officer.

(4) Failure by the trial judge to consider the conduct of the appellant which was indicative of his innocence.

(5) The drugs were hidden and therefore the appellant could not have been aware of them.

Ground (1)

[8] The point raised was that without the written grounds of judgment this Court would indirectly act as the trial Court. According to counsel this would deprive the appellant of the first stage of the appeal at the Court of Appeal and would limit him to only the last stage of appeal to the Federal Court. It was subm