[2] The facts relevant to the appeal are as follows. On 10 January 2002, Assistant Superintendent of Police Ramli Muda (PW3) acting on information he received proceeded to house GDMA 8/1 at Kampong Berek, Gong Dermin, Banggu, Kota Bharu. He was accompanied by a police party. On arrival at the scene, PW3 and his team lay in ambush. He observed the accused in the veranda of the house. PW5 (Tuan Mazuan bin Tuan Yusof) testified as to how the accused came to be there. This witness was seated under a tree near the house in question. He saw a Kancil motor car arrive. The accused alighted from the car. He was carrying red bag (exh. P18). It was slung over his right shoulder. He went up to the house and knocked on the door. It was opened by Tuan Mazlan bin Tuan Yusof (PW6). The accused asked for PW8 (PW6's father). PW8 was not at home at the time. He returned later. PW6 then informed Eyot bte Kidar (PW7) of the accused's arrival. PW7 emerged for a moment, had a look at the accused and then returned to the kitchen to fetch him some refreshment. The accused then took a seat in the veranda of the house. PW8 then arrived and about 10 minutes passed. It was at this stage that PW3 approached the accused and introduced himself to the accused as a police officer. The accused began to shiver and urinated in his trousers. PW3 seized exh. P18 and searched it. In it he found a substance which on subsequent chemical analysis was found to be 1996.7 grams of cannabis. The accused was later charged for trafficking in that drug.

[3] Now, in order to establish a prima facie case against the accused by reliance on the presumption under s. 37(da) of the Act , the prosecution had to prove: (i) that the accused was in actual physical possession of the drug in question; and (ii) that the accused at the material time had knowledge of the drug found to be in his possession, that is to say that he had "mens rea possession": See, Public Prosecutor v. Badrulsham bin Baharom . The first element was easily established here because the accused did have custody and control of the bag. Indeed, it is quite clear from the evidence that he was exercising dominion over exh. P18 at all material times. The only question is whether he had mens rea possession. Like any other mental ingredient in an offence, this is to be inferred from the proved and admitted facts of each case.